Assay for selecting compositions providing enhanced effectiveness of exogenous chemicals applied to plants

ABSTRACT

A composition is disclosed for application to a plant that comprises an exogenous chemical (for example, a postemergent herbicide), an aqueous diluent, and a first excipient substance that is amphiphilic. The weight/weight ratio of the first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100. The aqueous composition forms anisotropic aggregates on a wax layer, and the presence of the anisotropic aggregates can be detected by a test described herein. Compositions of the present invention, when applied to plants, provide enhanced biological activity per unit amount of exogenous chemical, as compared to otherwise similar compositions containing surfactants that do not form anisotropic aggregates. Without being bound by theory, it is presently believed that this enhanced biological activity results from the formation or enlargement of hydrophilic channels through the epicuticular wax of the plant.

This application is a division of application Ser. No. 08/958,149 filedOct. 24, 1997, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,093,681, which claims the benefit ofprovisional application serial No. 60/029,317, filed Oct. 25, 1996;provisional application serial No. 60/034,887, filed Jan. 31, 1997; andprovisional application serial No. 60/039,789, filed Mar. 4, 1997. Eachof those provisional applications is incorporated here by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to formulations and methods for enhancing theefficacy of exogenous chemicals used in treating plants. An exogenouschemical, as defined herein, is any chemical substance, whethernaturally or synthetically derived, which (a) has biological activity oris capable of releasing in a plant an ion, moiety or derivative whichhas biological activity, and (b) is applied to a plant with the intentor result that the chemical substance or its biologically active ion,moiety or derivative enter living cells or tissues of the plant andelicit a stimulatory, inhibitory, regulatory, therapeutic, toxic orlethal response in the plant itself or in a pathogen, parasite orfeeding organism present in or on the plant. Examples of exogenouschemical substances include, but are not limited to, chemical pesticides(such as herbicides, algicides, fungicides, bactericides, viricides,insecticides, aphicides, miticides, nematicides, molluscicides, and thelike), plant growth regulators, fertilizers and nutrients, gametocides,defoliants, desiccants, mixtures thereof, and the like.

Exogenous chemicals, including foliar-applied herbicides, have at timesbeen formulated with surfactants, so that when water is added, theresulting sprayable composition is more easily and effectively retainedon the foliage (e.g., the leaves or other photosynthesizing organs) ofplants. Surfactants can also bring other benefits, including improvedcontact of spray droplets with a waxy leaf surface and, in some cases,improved penetration of the accompanying exogenous chemical into theinterior of leaves. Through these and perhaps other effects, surfactantshave long been known to increase the biological effectiveness ofherbicide compositions, or other compositions of exogenous chemicals,when added to or included in such compositions. Thus, for example, theherbicide glyphosate (N-phosphonomethylglycine) has been formulated withsurfactants such as polyoxyalkylene-type surfactants including, amongother surfactants, polyoxyalkylene alkylamines. Commercial formulationsof glyphosate herbicide marketed under the trademark ROUNDUP® have beenformulated with a surfactant composition based on such a polyoxyalkylenealkylamine, in particular a polyethoxylated tallowamine, this surfactantcomposition being identified as MON 0818. Surfactants have generallybeen combined with glyphosate or other exogenous chemicals either in acommercial concentrate (herein referred to as a “coformulation”), or ina diluted mixture that is prepared from separate compositions, onecomprising an exogenous chemical (e.g. glyphosate) and anothercomprising surfactant, prior to use in the field (i.e., a tank mix).

Various combinations of exogenous chemicals and surfactants or otheradjuvants have been tested in the past. In some instances, the additionof a particular surfactant has not produced uniformly positive ornegative changes in the effect of the exogenous chemical on the plant(e.g., a surfactant that may enhance the activity of a particularherbicide on certain weeds may interfere with, or antagonize, theherbicidal efficacy on another weed species).

Some surfactants tend to degrade fairly rapidly in aqueous solutions. Asa result, surfactants that exhibit this property can only be usedeffectively in tank mixes (i.e., mixed with the other ingredients insolution or dispersion in the tank soon before spraying is to occur),rather than being coformulated in an aqueous composition with the otheringredients in the first instance. This lack of stability, or inadequateshelf-life, has hindered the use of certain surfactants in someexogenous chemical formulations.

Other surfactants, though chemically stable, are physically incompatiblewith certain exogenous chemicals, particularly in concentratecoformulations. For example, most classes of nonionic surfactantincluding polyoxyethylene alkylether surfactants, do not toleratesolutions of high ionic strength, as for example in a concentratedaqueous solution of a salt of glyphosate. Physical incompatibility canalso lead to inadequate shelf-life. Other problems that can arise fromsuch incompatibility include the formation of aggregates large enough tointerfere with commercial handling and application, for example byblocking spray nozzles.

Another problem that has been observed in the past is the effect ofenvironmental conditions on uptake of an exogenous chemical compositioninto foliage of a plant. For example, conditions such as temperature,relative humidity, presence or absence of sunlight, and health of theplant to be treated, can affect the uptake of a herbicide into theplant. As a result, spraying exactly the same herbicidal composition intwo different situations can result in different herbicidal control ofthe sprayed plants.

One consequence of the above-described variability is that often ahigher rate of herbicide per unit area is applied than might actually berequired in that situation, in order to be certain that adequate controlof undesired plants will be achieved. For similar reasons, otherfoliar-applied exogenous chemicals are also typically applied atsignificantly higher rates than needed to give the desired biologicaleffect in the particular situation where they are used, to allow for thenatural variability that exists in efficiency of foliar uptake. A needtherefore exists for compositions of exogenous chemicals that, throughmore efficient uptake into plant foliage, allow reduced use rates.

Many exogenous chemicals are commercially packaged as a liquidconcentrate that contains a significant amount of water. The packagedconcentrate is shipped to distributors or retailers. Ultimately thepackaged concentrate ends up in the hands of an end user, who furtherdilutes the concentrate by adding water in accordance with labelinstructions on the package. The dilute composition thus prepared isthen sprayed on plants.

A significant portion of the cost of such packaged concentrates is thecost of transporting the concentrate from the manufacturing site to thelocation where the end user purchases it. Any liquid concentrateformulation that contained relatively less water and thus more exogenouschemical would reduce the cost per unit amount of exogenous chemical.However, one important limit on the ability of the manufacturer toincrease the loading of the exogenous chemical in the concentrate is thestability of that formulation. With some combinations of ingredients, alimit will be reached at which any further reduction of water content inthe concentrate will cause it to become unstable (e.g., to separate intodiscrete layers), which may make it commercially unacceptable.

Accordingly, a need exists for improved formulations of exogenouschemicals, particularly herbicides, that are stable effective, lesssensitive to environmental conditions, and permit the use of reducedamounts of exogenous chemical to achieve the desired biological effectin or on plants. A need also exists for stable liquid concentrateformulations of exogenous chemicals that contain less water and moreexogenous chemical than prior art concentrates.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to novel methods and compositions whereinexogenous chemicals are applied to plants to generate a desiredbiological response.

One embodiment of the present invention is a method of applying anexogenous chemical to a plant, comprising the steps of (a) contactingfoliage of the plant with a biologically effective amount of theexogenous chemical, and (b) contacting the same foliage with an aqueouscomposition that comprises a first excipient substance that isamphiphilic. The weight/weight ratio of said first excipient substanceto the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100. Further,the aqueous composition forms anisotropic aggregates in or on a waxlayer as explained below. “Contacting” in this context means placing thesubstance or composition on the foliage. “Amphiphilic” means having atleast one polar, water-soluble head group which is hydrophilic and atleast one water-insoluble organic tail which is hydrophobic, containedwithin the same molecule.

In this method, step (b) can occur simultaneously with or within about96 hours before or after step (a). In embodiments of the method in whichthe two steps occur simultaneously, either the exogenous chemical andthe aqueous composition can be applied to the plant separately, forexample by two spray nozzles directed at the same foliage, or theexogenous chemical can be contained within the aqueous composition, forexample in a tank mix or coformulation.

Formation of anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer is determinedby a test described in detail subsequently herein. In general, the test,as it applies to a composition comprising an exogenous chemical,comprises the steps of (1) providing a glass microscope slide coatedwith a thin, uniform layer of wax, such that the wax layer on the slideexhibits a dark field when illuminated by transmitted polarized lightand examined through a microscope, (2) preparing a sample of an aqueoussolution or dispersion of the composition to be tested, diluted orconcentrated if necessary such that the concentration of exogenouschemical is about 15% to about 20% by weight of the composition, (3)positioning the wax-coated slide on the stage of a microscope thattransmits polarized light through the slide, (4) placing a drop of thesample on the wax on the slide to form an assay slide, (5) maintainingthe assay slide at approximately ambient temperature for a period ofabout 5 to about 20 minutes, and (6) determining, at the end of thatperiod, whether when transmitting polarized light the locus of the dropon the slide displays birefringence. Birefringence at 5-20 minutesindicates the presence of anisotropic aggregates in or on the wax layer,while the absence of birefringence at that time indicates the absence ofanisotropic aggregates as defined herein.

The test, as it applies to an aqueous composition of one or moreexcipient substances, not itself containing an exogenous chemical butintended for application to foliage of a plant in conjunction with anexogenous chemical, is as just described, except that in step (2) thecomposition is diluted or concentrated so that the concentration of thefirst excipient substance is approximately 5% to 7% by weight.

An “excipient substance” as that term is used in this patent is anysubstance other than an exogenous chemical and water that is added tothe composition. “Excipient substances” include inert ingredientsalthough an excipient substance useful in the present invention does nothave to be devoid of biological activity.

Another embodiment of the present invention is a plant treatmentcomposition comprising (a) an exogenous chemical, and (b) a firstexcipient substance that is amphiphilic. As described above, theweight/weight ratio of said first excipient substance to the exogenouschemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100, and in presence of watersaid composition forms anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer. Thiscomposition can be used in a method of treating plants, in which foliageof the plant is contacted with a biologically effective amount of acomposition as described above and further comprising an aqueousdiluent.

A wide variety of exogenous chemicals can be used in the compositionsand methods of the present invention. A preferred class isfoliar-applied exogenous chemicals, i.e. exogenous chemicals that arenormally applied post-emergence to foliage of plants. A preferredsubclass of foliar-applied exogenous chemicals is those that arewater-soluble. By “water-soluble” in this context is meant having asolubility in distilled water at 25° C. greater than about 1% by weight.Especially preferred water-soluble exogenous chemicals are salts thathave an anion portion and a cation portion. In one embodiment of theinvention, at least one of the anion and cation portions is biologicallyactive and has a molecular weight of less than about 300. Particularexamples of such exogenous chemicals where the cation portion isbiologically active are paraquat, diquat and chlormequat. More commonlyit is the anion portion that is biologically active.

Another preferred subclass of exogenous chemicals is those that exhibitsystemic biological activity in the plant. Within this subclass, anespecially preferred group of exogenous chemicals isN-phosphonomethylglycine and its herbicidal derivatives.N-phosphonomethylglycine, often referred to by its common nameglyphosate, can be used in its acid form, but is more preferably used inthe form of a salt. Any water-soluble salt of glyphosate can be used inthe practice of this invention. Some preferred salts include the sodium,potassium, ammonium, mono-, di-, tri- and tetra-C₁₋₄-alkylammonium,mono-, di- and tri-C₁₋₄-alkanolammonium, mono-, di- andtri-C₁₋₄-alkylsulfonium and sulfoxonium salts. The ammonium,monoisopropylammonium and trimethylsulfonium salts of glyphosate areespecially preferred. Mixtures of salts can also be useful in certainsituations.

A composition of the present invention comprising an exogenous chemicaland a first excipient substance as described above can have a number ofdifferent physical forms. For example, the composition can furthercomprise water in an amount effective to make the composition a diluteaqueous composition ready for application to foliage of a plant. Such acomposition typically contains about 0.02 to about 2 percent by weightof the exogenous chemical, but for some purposes can contain up to about10 percent by weight or even more of the exogenous chemical.

Alternatively, the composition can be a shelf-stable concentratecomposition comprising the exogenous chemical substance in an amount ofabout 10 to about 90 percent by weight. By “shelf-stable” in thiscontext it is meant that the composition does not exhibit phaseseparation when stored at ambient temperature for a period of timedependent on the particular circumstances. Such shelf-stableconcentrates can be, for example, (1) a solid composition comprising theexogenous chemical substance in an amount of about 30 to about 90percent by weight, such as a water-soluble or water-dispersible granularformulation, or (2) a composition that further comprises a liquiddiluent, wherein the composition comprises the exogenous chemicalsubstance in an amount of about 10 to about 60 percent by weight. Inthis latter embodiment, it is especially preferred for the exogenouschemical substance to be water-soluble and present in an aqueous phaseof the composition in an amount of about 15 to about 45 percent byweight of the composition. In particular, such a composition can be, forexample, an aqueous solution concentrate or an emulsion having an oilphase. If it is an emulsion, it can more specifically be, for example,an oil-in-water emulsion, a water-in-oil emulsion, or awater-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion. In one particular embodiment ofthe invention, the solid or aqueous composition further comprises asolid inorganic particulate colloidal material.

As described above, one embodiment of the invention is a sprayablecomposition having the property that it forms anisotropic aggregates inor on a wax layer. This composition comprises an exogenous chemical, anaqueous diluent, and a first excipient substance which is amphiphilic.In the sprayable composition, the weight/weight ratio of the firstexcipient substance to the exogenous chemical is between about 1:3 andabout 1:100. A sprayable composition conforms to this embodiment of theinvention even if the formation of anisotropic aggregates in or on a waxlayer occurs only following concentration of the composition on the waxlayer by evaporation of water. The term “spray composition” is sometimesused herein to mean a sprayable composition.

In a related embodiment of the invention, a concentrate composition isprovided which, upon dilution, dispersion or dissolution in water formsthe sprayable composition just described. The concentrate compositioncontains a reduced amount of the aqueous diluent, or, in a particularembodiment, is a dry composition having less than about 5% water byweight. Typically a concentrate composition of the invention contains atleast about 10% by weight of the exogenous chemical, preferably at leastabout 15%.

An alternative embodiment is a composition that does not itself comprisean exogenous chemical, but is intended for application to a plant inconjunction with or as a carrier for the application of an exogenouschemical. This composition comprises a first excipient substance asdescribed above. Such a composition may be sprayable, in which case italso comprises an aqueous diluent, or it may be a concentrate, requiringdilution, dispersion or dissolution in water to provide a sprayablecomposition. Thus, this embodiment of the invention can be provided as astand-alone product and applied to a plant, diluted as appropriate withwater, simultaneously with the application of an exogenous chemical, orbefore or after the application of the exogenous chemical.

In all embodiments, it is believed that the first excipient substanceforms supramolecular aggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion. Inparticular it is believed that aqueous compositions of the presentinvention form aggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion the majorityof which are not simple micelles. “Majority” means that more than 50% byweight of the first excipient substance present is in the form ofcomplex aggregates other than simple micelles, e.g. as bilayers ormultilamellar structures. Preferably, more than 75% by weight is in theform of complex aggregates other than simple micelles.

Whether or not an amphiphilic substance forms such aggregates depends onits molecular architecture. The effects of molecular architecture onsupramolecular self-assembly of amphiphilic molecules, as set forth forexample by J. N. Israelachvili, D. J. Mitchell and B. W. Ninham inFaraday Transactions II, Volume 72, pp. 1525-1568 (1976) and in numerouslater articles and monographs, are well known and understood. Animportant aspect is “critical packing parameter” (P) which is defined inthe literature by the following equation:

P=V/lA

where V is the volume of the hydrophobic tail of the molecule, l is theeffective length of the hydrophobic tail, and A is the area occupied bythe hydrophilic headgroup. These dimensions can be calculated fromphysical measurements as described in the literature and have beenpublished for numerous amphiphilic compounds.

It is believed that amphiphilic substances useful as the first excipientsubstance herein have a critical packing parameter greater than ⅓. Thefirst excipient substance forms aggregates in aqueous solution ordispersion which preferably have at least one dimension that is greaterthan two times the molecular length of the first excipient substance.

In one embodiment of the invention, an aqueous composition comprisessupramolecular aggregates of the first excipient substance which have anaverage diameter of at least 20 nm, preferably at least 30 nm.

These supramolecular aggregates can take a number of forms. In onepreferred embodiment, the first excipient substance is a vesicle-formingamphiphilic substance, such as a vesicle-forming lipid, and when thesubstance is dispersed in water the majority (greater than 50% byweight, preferably greater than 75% by weight) of the first excipientsubstance is present as vesicles or liposomes. In another preferredembodiment the first excipient substance is present as bilayers ormultilamellar structures which are not organized as vesicles orliposomes. Compositions of the present invention can also include,without limitation, colloidal systems such as emulsions (water/oil,oil/water, or multiple, e.g., water/oil/water), foams, microemulsions,and suspensions or dispersions of microparticulates, nanoparticulates,or microcapsules. Compositions of the invention can include more thanone type of aggregate or colloidal system; examples include liposomes orvesicles dispersed in a microemulsion, and compositions havingcharacteristics of both emulsions and suspensions, e.g. suspo-emulsions.The present invention also encompasses any formulation, which may or maynot contain a significant amount of water, that on dilution in anaqueous medium forms such colloidal systems, and/or systems comprisingvesicles, liposomes, bilayers or multilamellar structures, so long asthe other requirements stipulated herein are met.

The weight ratio of the first excipient substance to the exogenouschemical is between about 1:3 and about 1:100. We have been surprised bythe high level of biological effectiveness, specifically herbicidaleffectiveness of a glyphosate composition, exhibited at such low ratiosof excipient substance to exogenous chemical. Higher ratios can also beeffective but are likely to be uneconomic in most situations andincrease the risk of producing an antagonistic effect on effectivenessof the exogenous chemical.

Prior art exogenous chemical compositions that have includedliposome-forming excipient substances have typically contained a higherpercentage of the liposome-forming excipient substance than of theexogenous chemical. Compositions of the present invention, in contrast,contain less of the excipient substance than the exogenous chemical, andin some embodiments much less. This makes the compositions of thepresent invention much less expensive than the above-described prior artcompositions. It is surprising that the enhancement of biologicalactivity that has been observed when using the present invention can beachieved with the addition of relatively small amounts of such excipientsubstances.

In one embodiment of the invention the first excipient substance is aliposome-forming material that comprises an amphiphilic compound ormixture of such compounds having two hydrophobic moieties, each of whichis a saturated alkyl or acyl chain having from about 8 to about 22carbon atoms. The amphiphilic compound or mixture of such compoundshaving said two hydrophobic moieties with about 8 to about 22 carbonatoms constitutes from about 40 to 100 percent by weight of allamphiphilic compounds having two hydrophobic moieties present in theliposome-forming material. Preferably the liposome-forming material hasa hydrophilic head group comprising a cationic group. More preferably,the cationic group is an amine or ammonium group.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the first excipientsubstance comprises a liposome-forming compound having a hydrophobicmoiety comprising two saturated or unsaturated hydrocarbyl groups R¹ andR² each having about 7 to about 21 carbon atoms. A number of subclassesof such liposome-forming compounds are known.

One subclass has the formula

N⁺(CH₂R¹)(CH₂R²)(R³)(R⁴)Z⁻  I

wherein R³ and R⁴ are independently hydrogen, C₁₋₄ alkyl or C₁₋₄hydroxyalkyl and Z is a suitable anion.

A second subclass has the formula

N⁺(R⁵)(R⁶)(R⁷)CH₂CH(OCH₂R¹)CH₂(OCH₂R²)Z⁻  II

wherein R⁵, R⁶ and R¹ are independently hydrogen C₁₋₄ alkyl or C,hydroxyalkyl and Z is a suitable anion.

A third subclass has the formula

N⁺(R⁵)(R⁶)(R⁷)CH₂CH(OCOR¹)CH₂(OCOR²)Z⁻  III

wherein R⁵, R⁶, R⁷ and Z are as defined above.

A fourth subclass has the formula

N⁺(R⁵)(R⁶)(R⁷)CH₂CH₂-PO₄ ⁻—CH₂CH(OCOR¹)CH₂(OCOR²)  IV

wherein R⁵, R⁶, and R¹ are as defined above.

Compounds of formulas I-IV will have the indicated formulas at a pH of 4and may have the same formulas at other pH's as well. It should beunderstood, however, that compositions of the present invention are notlimited to use at a pH of 4.

R¹ and R² preferably are independently saturated straight-chain alkylgroups each having about 7 to about 21 carbon atoms. Examples ofsuitable agriculturally acceptable anions Z include hydroxide, chloride,bromide, iodide, sulfate, phosphate and acetate.

In all of the above subclasses of liposome-forming substances, thehydrophilic moiety comprises a cationic group. specifically an amine orammonium group. The compound as a whole is in some cases cationic (as inI, II and III) and in some cases neutral (as in IV). Where the aminegroup is quaternary, it behaves as a cationic group independently of pH.Where the amine group is secondary or tertiary, it behaves as a cationicgroup when protonated, i.e. In an acid medium, for example at a pH of 4.

In a preferred embodiment, the first excipient substance is aphospholipid selected from the group consisting ofdi-C₈₋₂₂-alkanoylphosphatidylcholines anddi-C₈₋₂₂-alkanoylphosphatidylethanolamines. In a particularly preferredembodiment, the first excipient substance is a dipalmitoyl or distearoylester of phosphatidylcholine or a mixture thereof.

Other subclasses of liposome-forming substances having two hydrophobicchains each comprising a C₇₋₂₁ hydrocarbyl group can also be used as thefirst excipient substance in compositions of the invention. Whilesubstances having a cationic group in the hydrophilic moiety arepreferred, nonionic or anionic substances can be used if desired.

In another embodiment of the invention, the first excipient substance isan amphiphilic quaternary ammonium compound or mixture of suchcompounds. The hydrophobic moiety of the quaternary ammonium compound isa saturated alkyl or haloalkyl group having about 6 to about 22 carbonatoms. In this embodiment, the first excipient substance is notnecessarily a liposome-forming substance, but it is believed to formaggregates in aqueous solution or dispersion as described above.

Preferred quaternary ammonium compounds (other than those which areliposome-forming and have two hydrocarbyl chains) for use as the firstexcipient substance in compositions of the invention have the formula

R⁸—W_(a)—X—Y_(b)—(CH₂)_(n)—N⁺(R⁹)(R¹⁰)(R¹¹)T⁻  V

wherein R⁸ represents the hydrophobic moiety and is a hydrocarbyl orhaloalkyl group having from about 6 to about 22 carbon atoms, W and Yare independently O or NH, a and b are independently 0 or 1 but at leastone of a and b is 1, X is CO, SO or SO₂, n is 2 to 4, R⁹, R¹⁰ and R¹¹are independently C₁₋₄ alkyl, and T is a suitable anion. R⁸ in oneparticular embodiment is hydrocarbyl having about 12 to about 18 carbonatoms. R⁸ can also be fluorinated. In one specific embodiment, R⁸ isperfluorinated, and preferably has about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms.Suitable anions T include hydroxide, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfate,phosphate and acetate. In one particularly preferred embodiment, R⁸ issaturated perfluoroalkyl having about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms, X isCO or SO₂, Y is NH, a is 0, b is 1, n is 3, R⁹, R¹⁰ and R¹¹ are methyl,and T is selected from the group consisting of chloride, bromide andiodide.

In a further embodiment of the invention, the first excipient substanceis an alkylether surfactant or mixture of such surfactants having theformula

R¹²—O—(CH₂CH₂O)_(n)(CH(CH₃)CH₂O)_(m)—R¹³  VI

wherein R¹² is an alkyl or alkenyl group having about 16 to about 22carbon atoms, n is an average number of about 10 to about 100, m is anaverage number of 0 to about 5 and R¹³ is hydrogen or C₁₋₄ alkyl.Preferably R¹² is a saturated straight-chain alkyl group, R¹³ ishydrogen, m is 0 and n is from about 10 to about 40, more preferablyfrom about 20 to about 40. Most preferably the alkylether surfactant isa polyoxyethylene cetyl or stearyl ether or mixture thereof having 20-40moles of ethylene oxide (EO). The term “alkylether” as used hereinshould be understood to include alkenylether surfactants.

Compositions of the present invention can optionally further comprise asecond excipient substance having at least one hydrophobic moiety,wherein if the second excipient substance has one hydrophobic moiety,the hydrophobic moiety is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having about6 to about 22 carbon atoms, and wherein if the second excipientsubstance has a plurality of hydrophobic moieties, each such hydrophobicmoiety is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl group having more than 2 carbonatoms, said plurality of hydrophobic moieties having a total of about 12to about 40 carbon atoms. The second excipient substance, if present,may or may not itself be one that forms supramolecular aggregates asdescribed above. In a particular embodiment of the invention where thefirst excipient substance is a liposome-forming substance of formula I,II, III or IV above, a second excipient substance is present and is aquaternary ammonium compound or mixture of such compounds. Amongpreferred quaternary ammonium compounds for use as the second excipientsubstance in this embodiment are compounds of formula V above.

In another particular embodiment of the invention where the firstexcipient substance is a liposome-forming substance of formula I, II,III or IV above, a second excipient substance is present and is acompound or mixture of compounds of formula

R¹⁴—CO—A—R¹⁵  VII

wherein R¹⁴ is a hydrocarbyl group having about 5 to about 21 carbonatoms, R¹⁵ is a hydrocarbyl group having 1 to about 14 carbon atoms, thetotal number of carbon atoms in R¹⁴ and R¹⁵ is about 11 to about 27, andA is O or NH.

R¹⁴ preferably has about 11 to about 21 carbon atoms, R¹⁵ preferably has1 to about 6 carbon atoms and A is preferably O. More preferably, thesecond excipient substance is a C₁₋₄ alkyl ester of a C₂₋₁₈ fatty acid,for example a propyl, isopropyl or butyl ester of a C₁₂₋₁₈ fatty acid.Butyl stearate is an especially preferred example. The aqueouscomposition in embodiments comprising a compound of formula VIIpreferably is an emulsion comprising an oil phase that comprises saidsecond excipient substance, for example a water-in-oil-in-water multipleemulsion or an oil-in-water emulsion. Alternatively, a second excipientsubstance of formula VII is associated in some way with aliposome-forming first excipient substance.

In yet another particular embodiment of the invention, the firstexcipient substance is an alkylether surfactant of formula VI and asecond excipient substance is present and is a compound or mixture ofcompounds of formula VII.

In any of the above particular embodiments, the exogenous chemicaland/or second excipient substance can be encapsulated within orassociated with aggregates (e.g., liposomes) formed by the firstexcipient substance, but do not necessarily have to be so encapsulatedor associated. “Associated” in this context means bound to or at leastpartly intercalated in some fashion in a vesicle wall, as opposed tobeing encapsulated. In yet another embodiment of the invention where thefirst excipient substance forms liposomes, the exogenous chemical and/orsecond excipient substance is not encapsulated in or associated with theliposomes at all. Although the present invention does not exclude thepossibility of so encapsulating or associating the exogenous chemical, apresently preferred dilute sprayable liposomal composition encapsulatesless than 5% by weight of the exogenous chemical that is present in theoverall composition. Another dilute sprayable liposomal embodiment ofthe present invention has no substantial amount (i.e., less than 1% byweight) of the exogenous chemical encapsulated in the liposomes. As adroplet of such a liposomal composition dries on foliage of a plant, theproportion of the exogenous chemical that is encapsulated in theliposomes may change. Compositions of the present invention that includean exogenous chemical can be applied to foliage of plants in an amountthat is effective to achieve the desired biological effect of theexogenous chemical. For example, when the exogenous chemical is apost-emergence herbicide, the composition can be applied to a plant in aherbicidally effective amount.

Without being bound by theory, it is believed that that the method andcompositions of the present invention create or enlarge hydrophilicchannels through the epicuticular wax of the plant cuticle, thesechannels being capable of accommodating the mass transfer of awater-soluble exogenous chemical into the plant, and thus transportingthe exogenous chemical into the plant more rapidly or more completelythan an epicuticular wax layer lacking such formation or enlargement ofhydrophilic channels. Of course, certain compositions of the presentinvention can also enter a plant through stomata, but this generallyrequires a very low surface tension which is not an essential feature ofthe present compositions. The enhanced cuticular penetration believed tobe achieved by the compositions of the present invention enhances theoverall delivery and effectiveness of the exogenous chemical. Whereas anexogenous chemical such as glyphosate, formulated as an aqueous solutionor dispersion with surfactants which do not have the property of forminganisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer, normally penetrates throughthe epicuticular wax very slowly (e.g., in 1-4 days), a substantialportion of the exogenous chemical in compositions of the presentinvention penetrates much more quickly (e.g., in from about 10 minutesto a few hours, preferably in less than about 30 minutes).

Thus, methods and compositions of the invention are believed to owetheir superior effectiveness at least in part to accelerated uptake intoplant foliage. In conventional methods of treating plants with exogenouschemicals, in particular polar exogenous chemicals, the epicuticular waxlayer presents an almost continuous barrier through which such exogenouschemicals diffuse with difficulty, even in the presence of surfactantswhich increase diffusive mobility but do not introduce the possibilityof rapid mass transfer through hydrophilic channels.

Again without being bound by theory, it is believed that the hydrophilicchannels are created within the epicuticular wax layer by theself-assembly of molecules of the first excipient substance which has ahydrophobic moiety that associates with the wax and a hydrophilic moietythat attracts water to form an aqueous continuum across the epicuticularwax layer linking up with hydrophilic pathways in the cuticle proper. Apolar exogenous chemical can move by mass transfer along such an aqueouscontinuum to enter the plant.

Again without being bound by theory, it is believed that when thecomposition is present on the leaf of a plant as a droplet of aqueoussolution or dispersion, in an aqueous microdomain on the cuticularsurface (i.e., the aqueous region at the interface between the waterdroplet and the epicuticular wax), the majority (i.e., more than 50% byweight) of the aggregate-forming substance is present in a form otherthan a monolayer, for example as a bilayer or multilamellar (liquidcrystal) structure. The aggregate-forming substances employed haveseveral preferred characteristics that are believed to contribute to theformation of transcuticular hydrophilic channels. For instance, theyhave a tendency to form extended self-assembled structures in thepresence of water and the kinds of waxes encountered in cuticles.Generally, materials that form non-simple (i.e., not small sphericalmicellar structures) aggregates in solution, such as vesicles orcylindrical, discotic, or ribbon-like micellar structures are preferred.These tend to form more complex adsorbed and absorbed layers withhydrophobic substrates than those simple micellar systems that tend toproduce simple adsorbed monolayers. These substances also tend toproduce lyotropic mesophases such as lamellar, hexagonal or reversedhexagonal phases in the compositions established in the aqueousmicrodomains in or on the cuticle.

In one embodiment of the invention, a cationic headgroup on the firstexcipient substance is also preferred. The cationic group is believed toenhance initial adhesion to the leaf surface, since the majority of suchsurfaces carry an overall negative charge. The cationic group is alsobelieved to contribute to the hydrophilicity of channels in theepicuticular wax formed or enlarged by the method and compositions ofthe invention. Cationic groups, in particular amine or ammonium groups,attract water molecules which further enlarge the hydrophilic channelsand thereby provide an improved pathway of entry for exogenous chemicalsthat are polar or water-soluble.

It is further believed that the creation or enlargement of hydrophilicchannels in epicuticular wax results in the wax becoming plasticized. Afurther embodiment of the invention is thus a method for applying anexogenous chemical to a plant having an epicuticular wax layer,comprising (a) plasticizing the epicuticular wax layer in conjunctionwith (b) contacting the epicuticular wax layer with the exogenouschemical. In this embodiment the step of plasticizing the epicuticularwax layer is accomplished by contacting the layer with an aqueouscomposition comprising a first excipient substance as defined above andoptionally a second excipient substance as defined above. The weightratio of the first excipient substance to the exogenous chemical isbetween about 1:3 and about 1:100.

Herbicidal compositions in accordance with the present invention arealso useful in methods for enhancing the yield of a field crop. Such amethod can comprise the steps of (a) planting a crop in a field, (b)substantially freeing the field of one or more weed species that woulddiminish the yield of the crop by applying to the weed species aherbicidally effective amount of a composition as described above, (c)allowing the crop to mature, and (d) harvesting the crop. Alternatively,the method can comprise the steps of (a) substantially freeing the fieldof one or more weed species that would diminish the yield of the crop byapplying to the weed species a herbicidally effective amount of thecomposition, (b) planting the crop in the field, (c) allowing the cropto mature, and (d) harvesting the crop.

In one particular method in accordance with the present invention, aherbicidal composition as described above can be applied to a complex ofweeds that are present in a single field, the weeds being, for example,velvetleaf, morningglory, and prickly sida. The composition is appliedin a herbicidally effective amount, and provides herbicidal control ofeach of the weed species in the complex.

Another embodiment of the present invention is a herbicidal method,comprising contacting the foliage of a plant with a herbicidallyeffective amount of a composition as described above, whereby theherbicidal effectiveness of the composition on the plant to which it isapplied is visibly better than the herbicidal effectiveness on that samespecies of plant, under substantially the same conditions, of acomposition containing a similar amount of surfactant but that does notform anisotropic aggregates. “Visibly better” in this context means thatthe difference in herbicidal effect of the two compositions on theplants is readily noticeable to the eye of an experienced weedscientist.

Another embodiment of the present invention is a herbicidal method whichcan be used in a field that contains both weed and crop plants, wherethe crop plants are resistant to the effects of a particular herbicideat the rate that herbicide is used. The method comprises contacting thefoliage of both the weeds and the crops in the field with a compositionas described above. The composition will have a herbicidal effect on theweeds (i.e., it will partially or entirely kill the weeds) but it willnot harm the crops. This herbicidal method applies to any combination ofa selective post-emergence herbicide (e.g. 2,4-D) and a crop on whichthat herbicide can be used selectively to kill weeds (e.g., in the caseof 2,4-D, wheat). This herbicidal method also applies to any combinationof a normally non-selective post-emergence herbicide and a crop bred orgenetically modified to be resistant to that herbicide. An example of asuitable combination of herbicide and herbicide-resistant crop isROUNDUP® herbicide and ROUNDUP READY® crops, developed by MonsantoCompany.

The compositions and methods of the present invention have a number ofadvantages. They provide enhanced biological activity of exogenouschemicals in or on plants in comparison with prior formulations, eitherin terms of greater ultimate biological effect, or obtaining anequivalent biological effect while using a reduced application rate ofexogenous chemical. Certain herbicide formulations of the presentinvention can avoid antagonism that has been observed in some prior artherbicide formulations, and can minimize quick production of necroticlesions on leaves that in some situations hinder overall translocationof herbicide in the plant. Certain herbicide compositions of theinvention modify the spectrum of activity of the herbicide across arange of plant species. For example, certain formulations of the presentinvention containing glyphosate can provide good herbicidal activityagainst broadleaf weeds while not losing any herbicidal effectiveness onnarrowleaf weeds. Others can enhance herbicidal effectiveness onnarrowleaf weeds to a greater extent than on broadleaf weeds. Stillothers can have enhanced effectiveness which is specific to a narrowrange of species or even a single species.

Another advantage of the present invention is that it employs relativelysmall amounts of the first and second excipient substances in relationto the amount of exogenous chemical employed. This makes thecompositions and methods of the present invention relativelyinexpensive, and also tends to reduce instability problems in specificcompositions where one or both excipient substances are physicallyincompatible with the exogenous chemical (e.g., alkylether surfactantsin solutions of high ionic strength, such as concentrated glyphosatesalt solutions).

Even at the low concentrations of the excipient substances used in thepresent invention, there may be limits on the maximum concentration ofexogenous chemical that can be used without causing compatibilityproblems (e.g., separation of the composition into discrete layers). Insome preferred embodiments of the invention, composition stability athigh loadings of exogenous chemical is maintained by adding otheringredients such as, for example, colloidal particulates. Somecompositions of the present invention exhibit enhanced biologicalactivity and have a higher loading of exogenous chemical than possiblein prior art compositions.

Further, compositions of the present invention are less sensitive insome instances to environmental conditions such as relative humidity atthe time of application to the plant. Also, the present invention allowsthe use of smaller amounts of herbicides or other pesticides, whilestill obtaining the required degree of control of weeds or otherundesired organisms.

DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS

When the phrase “anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer” is usedherein, it relates to determinations made by the following testprocedure. We have found this test to predict with a high degree ofreliability whether a composition comprising water and an exogenouschemical, or a composition comprising water which is to be used inconjunction with an exogenous chemical, will show enhanced biologicaleffectiveness when applied to foliage of plants. Modifications can bemade to the test; however a procedure modified in some major respectwill not necessarily give the same results and will not necessarilypredict enhanced effectiveness as reliably as the procedure describedhere.

The first stage in the procedure is to prepare a wax-coated slide. Wehave found a preferred wax for the purpose to be a blend of carnauba waxand beeswax in a weight/weight ratio of approximately 10:1. A clear waxmixture is prepared consisting of 5% carnauba wax and 0.5% beeswax inisopropanol, and is maintained at a temperature of approximately 82° C.The end of a glass 2.4 cm×7.2 cm microscope slide is immersedperpendicularly in the wax mixture to a depth of approximately one-thirdof the length of the slide. After 10 to 15 seconds, the slide is veryslowly and steadily withdrawn from the wax mixture and allowed to cool,leaving a wax layer deposited on both faces of the slide.

Visual examination of the slide can give a preliminary indication of thethickness and uniformity of the wax coating. If imperfections areevident the slide is rejected. If the slide shows no obviousimperfections, the wax coating is carefully removed from one face of theslide by wiping with acetone. Further evaluation of the acceptability ofthe wax-coated slide for the test is done by examining the slide under amicroscope. The slide is selected for use in the test if, on microscopicexamination using a 4.9× objective, the wax coating is uniformly thickand there is uniform density of wax particles across the slide.Preference is for a coating that has few observable wax particles andexhibits a very dark field when examined under polarized light.

The next stage in the procedure is to conduct the test. For thispurpose, samples of an exogenous chemical composition to be tested arediluted, if necessary, to 15% to 20% by weight of the exogenouschemical. In the case of glyphosate, the desired concentration in acomposition sample is 15% to 20% acid equivalent (a.e.). Samples ofreference compositions are also prepared; in the case of glyphosate,Formulations B and J as defined in the Examples herein are appropriate.

For a composition of a first excipient substance not containing anexogenous chemical but to be applied in conjunction with an exogenouschemical, the desired concentration is approximately 5% to 7% by weightof the first excipient substance.

The following instrumentation, or equivalent, items are required oruseful:

Nikon SMZ-10A stereoscopic microscope equipped for polarized lightobservation, photomicrography, and video observation and recording.

3CCD MTI camera.

Diagnostic Instruments 150 IL-PS power supply.

Sony Trinitron color video monitor, model PVM-1353MD.

Mitsubishi time-lapse video cassette recorder, model HS-S5600.

Hewlett Packard Pavillion 7270 computer, with Windows 95 and Image-ProPlus version 2.0 electronic imaging program installed.

Hewlett Packard Deskjet 870Cse printer.

A wax-coated slide, prepared and selected as described above, ispositioned on the microscope stage, with the system set to providetransmitted light, both straight and polarized. A 1 μl drop of thesample to be tested is applied to the wax surface using a thoroughlycleaned 1 μl Hamilton syringe. This and subsequent operations arefollowed through the microscope at 4.9× objective. Duplicate ortriplicate tests are done for each composition. Numerous tests can beconducted simultaneously on a single slide. Progression of change in themicroscopic appearance of the sample is observed through the microscopeand recorded at designated time intervals. We have found usefulintervals to be 1 minute, 10 minutes, 2 hours and >24 hours afterapplication of the drop to the wax surface. Observations can also bemade at intermediate times to capture possible significant transitionsoccurring at such times.

The temperature of the wax layer tends to increase with prolongedexposure to the microscope light. In many cases we have found this doesnot significantly interfere with the results obtained. However, in somecases temperature does affect the outcome of the test and in such casesit is preferred to illuminate the sample only for the short periodsnecessary to make observations, so that the temperature of the wax layerremains close to ambient temperature. An example of a composition of theinvention where it is believed to be important to keep temperature closeto ambient is one containing a fatty acid ester such as butyl stearate.

At dark field (polarized light) the wax layer is observed forbirefringence, and at light field the character of the drop surface isobserved, at each time interval. The following records are made:

birefringence (yes/no);

time of initial appearance of birefringence;

character of the birefringence;

appearance of drop surface as composition “dries”;

degree of spread of the drop;

effects of temperature (warming of the slide) if any;

other noticeable changes.

Optionally, images are recorded at significant times using the 3CCD MTIcamera and the Image-Pro Plus program as documentation of observedchanges. Tests may if desired also be recorded on video, especiallyduring the first 15 minutes. In addition to images captured using 4.9×objective, overall-field views using 0.75× objective can be recorded toprovide clear comparisons of different samples tested on the same slide.

A particularly useful parameter for predicting enhanced effectiveness isthe observation of birefringence (yes/no) 5-20 minutes after depositionof the test drop on the wax-coated slide. We have found 10-15 minutesafter deposition to be an especially suitable time for observation ofthis parameter. The following results for oil-in-water emulsioncompositions comprising glyphosate IPA salt, butyl stearate andalkylether surfactants are typical of those obtained. Each ofcompositions WCS-1 to WCS-5 contained 15% w/w glyphosate a.e., 0.5% w/wbutyl stearate and 5% w/w alkylether surfactant. Formulations B and Jare commercial standard compositions of glyphosate defined in theExamples section later herein, and were diluted to 15% glyphosate a.e.for the test.

Birefringence Composition Alkylether at 10 min. WCS-1 Brij 78(steareth-20) yes WCS-2 Plurafac A-38 (ceteareth-27) yes WCS-3 Brij 98(oleth-20) yes WCS-4 Brij 35 (laureth-23) no WCS-5 Neodol 1-9 no (C₁₁linear alcohol 9EO) Formulation B no Formulation J no

It will be noted that where the hydrophobic moiety of the alkylether wasa C₁₁ (WCS-5) or C₁₂ (WCS-4) hydrocarbyl group, the composition did notshow anisotropic properties in the form of birefringence 10 minutesafter application to the wax-coated slide. However, where thehydrophobic moiety had a carbon chain length of 16 to 18 (WCS-1 toWCS-3), birefringence was evident, indicating the presence ofanisotropic aggregates in or on the wax layer. The intensity ofbirefringence was greatest with WCS-1 (containing steareth-20), followedby WCS-2 (containing ceteareth-27) and then WCS-3 (oleth-20).

Tests of alkylether compositions, as evidenced in Examples herein, haveshown that in general those containing alkylethers of hydrophobe carbonchain length 16 or greater show greater biological effectiveness thanthose having a shorter hydrophobe. In general greater biologicaleffectiveness has been obtained where the hydrophobe is saturated (as,for example, in steareth-20 and ceteareth-27) than where it isunsaturated (as, for example, in oleth-20).

The following compositions were made containing 15% glyphosate a.e. and5% alkylether surfactant, but no butyl stearate. In WCS-10 thesurfactant was steareth-10, in WCS-11 oleth-10 and in WCS-12 steareth-8(laboratory sample from Sigma).

Composition Alkylether Birefringence at 15 min. WCS-10 Brij 76(steareth-10) yes WCS-11 Brij 97 (oleth-10) no WCS-12 steareth-8 yes

The property of forming anisotropic aggregates as determined by thistest appears to require, on a C₁₆₋₁₈ straight-chain alcohol, a minimumof about 10 moles of ethylene oxide (EO). Where the alcohol is oleyl, anEO chain of 10 units is already too short, but where the alcohol isstearyl, even as short an EO chain as 8 units appears to suffice. Itshould be noted, however, that the steareth-8 used in composition WCS-12was obtained as a laboratory sample and is likely chemically purer thanthe commercial surfactants used in other compositions. Commercial gradesteareth-8 will not necessarily give the same result.

As further evidence of the usefulness of the present anisotropy test inpredicting biological effectiveness of exogenous chemical compositions,compositions WCS-6, WCS-7 and WCS-8 were prepared. each containing 30%glyphosate a.e. by weight, and were then diluted to 15% glyphosate a.e.for the test. All contained soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti)and were prepared by process (v) as detailed in the Examples herein.Composition WCS-6, before dilution, contained 5% lecithin, 5% FluoradFC-754 and 0.75% Ethomeen T/25. Composition WCS-7, before dilution,contained 2% lecithin and 2% Fluorad FC-754. Composition WCS-8, beforedilution, contained 2% lecithin and 0.75% Ethomeen T/25. In addition.Composition WCS-9 was prepared containing 15% glyphosate a.e. and 5%soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The following results wereobtained.

Birefringence Composition Excipient ingredients at 10 min. WCS-6lecithin + FC-754 + yes Ethomeen T/25 WCS-7 lecithin + FC-754 yes WCS-8lecithin + Ethomeen T/25 no WCS-9 lecithin no

As evidenced in the Examples herein, enhanced biological effectivenessis a feature of compositions containing lecithin as the first excipientsubstance and Fluorad FC-754 as the second excipient substance. In theabsence of Fluorad FC-754 or like material, lecithin, either alone ortogether with a tertiary alkylamine surfactant such as Ethomeen T/25 orMON 0818, does not consistently generate the desired enhancement.

In a further demonstration of the usefulness of the present anisotropytest, compositions WCS-13 and WCS-14 were prepared, each containing 20%glyphosate a.e. by weight, and were then diluted to 15% glyphosate a.e.for the test. Both contained soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). Composition WCS-13 was made by process (x) as described in theExamples herein and, before dilution, contained 6% lecithin, 6% EthomeenT/25 and 1.5% butyl stearate. Composition WCS-14 was identical exceptthat it contained no butyl stearate. Particular care was taken in thisstudy to avoid excessive warning of the wax-coated slide by prolongedillumination. The following results were obtained.

Birefringence Composition Excipient ingredients at 15 min. WCS-13lecithin + Ethomeen T/125 + yes butyl stearate WCS-14 lecithin +Ethomeen T/25 no

The addition of a small quantity of butyl stearate was thus sufficientto confer, on a glyphosate+lecithin+Ethomeen T/25 composition, theproperty of forming anisotropic aggregates in or on a wax layer. TheExamples herein illustrate the unexpected enhancement of biologicaleffectiveness observed when an exogenous chemical is formulated withlecithin and a fatty acid ester such as butyl stearate.

Thus where, for reasons of economy, compatibility with the exogenouschemical, or other considerations it is desired to provide an exogenouschemical composition having a relatively low content of excipientsubstances (for example a weight ratio of each excipient substance toexogenous chemical of about 1:3 or less), the anisotropy test providedhere is an in vitro assay method which can be used to identifybiologically effective compositions in advance of extensive testing invivo.

The in vitro assay method just described, together with modificationsthereof that will be readily apparent to those of skill in the art, is afurther embodiment of the present invention.

Examples of exogenous chemical substances that can be included incompositions of the present invention include, but are not limited to,chemical pesticides (such as herbicides, algicides, fungicides,bactericides, viricides, insecticides, aphicides, miticides,nematicides, molluscicides and the like), plant growth regulators,fertilizers and nutrients, gametocides, defoliants, desiccants, mixturesthereof and the like. In one embodiment of the invention, the exogenouschemical is polar.

A preferred group of exogenous chemicals are those that are normallyapplied post-emergence to the foliage of plants, i.e. foliar-appliedexogenous chemicals.

Some exogenous chemicals useful in the present invention arewater-soluble, for example salts that comprise biologically active ions,and also comprise counterions, which may be biologically inert orrelatively inactive. A particularly preferred group of thesewater-soluble exogenous chemicals or their biologically active ions ormoieties are systemic in plants, that is, they are to some extenttranslocated from the point of entry in the foliage to other parts ofthe plant where they can exert their desired biological effect.Especially preferred among these are herbicides, plant growth regulatorsand nematicides, particularly those that have a molecular weight,excluding counterions, of less than about 300. More especially preferredamong these are exogenous chemical compounds having one or morefunctional groups selected from amine, carboxylate, phosphonate andphosphinate groups.

Among such compounds, an even more preferred group are herbicidal orplant growth regulating exogenous chemical compounds having at least oneof each of amine carboxylate, and either phosphonate or phosphinatefunctional groups. Salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine are examples ofthis group of exogenous chemicals. Further examples include salts ofglufosinate, for instance the ammonium salt (ammonium DL-homoalanin-4-yl(methyl) phosphinate).

Another preferred group of exogenous chemicals which can be applied bythe method of the invention are nematicides such as those disclosed inU.S. Pat. No. 5,389,680, the disclosure of which is incorporated hereinby reference. Preferred nematicides of this group are salts of3,4,4-trifluoro-3-butenoic acid or ofN-(3,4,4-trifluoro-1-oxo-3-butenyl)glycine.

Exogenous chemicals which can usefully be applied by the method of thepresent invention are normally, but not exclusively, those which areexpected to have a beneficial effect on the overall growth or yield ofdesired plants such as crops, or a deleterious or lethal effect on thegrowth of undesirable plants such as weeds. The method of the presentinvention is particularly useful for herbicides, especially those thatare normally applied post-emergence to the foliage of unwantedvegetation.

Herbicides which can be applied by the method of the present inventioninclude but are not limited to any listed in standard reference workssuch as the “Herbicide Handbook,” Weed Science Society of America, 1994,7th Edition, or the “Farm Chemicals Handbook,” Meister PublishingCompany, 1997 Edition. Illustratively these herbicides includeacetanilides such as acetochlor, alachlor and metolachlor,aminotriazole, asulam, bentazon, bialaphos, bipyridyls such as paraquat,bromacil, cyclohexenones such as clethodim and sethoxydim, dicamba,diflufenican, dinitroanilines such as pendimethalin, diphenylethers suchas acifluorfen, fomesafen and oxyfluorfen, fatty acids such as C₉₋₁₀fatty acids, fosamine, flupoxam, glufosinate, glyphosate,hydroxybenzonitriles such as bromoxynil, imidazolinones such asimazaquin and imazethapyr, isoxaben, norflurazon, phenoxies such as2,4-D, phenoxypropionates such as diclofop, fluazifop and quizalofop,picloram, propanil, substituted ureas such as fluometuron andisoproturon, sulfonylureas such as chlorimuron, chlorsulfuron,halosulfuron, metsulfuron, primisulfuron, sulfometuron andsulfosulfuron, thiocarbamates such as triallate, triazines such asatrazine and metribuzin, and triclopyr. Herbicidally active derivativesof any known herbicide are also within the scope of the presentinvention. A herbicidally active derivative is any compound which is aminor structural modification, most commonly but not restrictively asalt or ester, of a known herbicide. These compounds retain theessential activity of the parent herbicide, but may not necessarily havea potency equal to that of the parent herbicide. These compounds mayconvert to the parent herbicide before or after they enter the treatedplant. Mixtures or coformulations of a herbicide with other ingredients,or of more than one herbicide, may likewise be employed.

An especially preferred herbicide is N-phosphonomethylglycine(glyphosate), a salt, adduct or ester thereof, or a compound which isconverted to glyphosate in plant tissues or which otherwise providesglyphosate ion. Glyphosate salts that can be used according to thisinvention include but are not restricted to alkali metal, for examplesodium and potassium, salts; ammonium salt; alkylamine, for exampledimethylamine and isopropylamine, salts; alkanolamine, for exampleethanolamine, salts; alkylsulfonium, for example trimethylsulfonium,salts; sulfoxonium salts; and mixtures thereof. The herbicidalcompositions sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP® and ACCORD® containthe monoisopropylamine (IPA) salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. Theherbicidal compositions sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP® Dry andRIVAL® contain the monoammonium salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. Theherbicidal composition sold by Monsanto Company as ROUNDUP® Geoforcecontains the monosodium salt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidalcomposition sold by Zeneca as TOUCHDOWN® contains the trimethylsulfoniumsalt of N-phosphonomethylglycine. The herbicidal properties ofN-phosphonomethylglycine and its derivatives were first discovered byFranz, then disclosed and patented in U.S. Pat. No. 3,799,758, issuedMar. 26, 1974. A number of herbicidal salts of N-phosphonomethylglycinewere patented by Franz in U.S. Pat. No. 4,405,531, issued Sep. 20, 1983.The disclosures of both of these patents are hereby incorporated byreference.

Because the commercially most important herbicidal derivatives ofN-phosphonomethylglycine are certain salts thereof, the glyphosatecompositions useful in the present invention will be described in moredetail with respect to such salts. These salts are well known andinclude ammonium, IPA, alkali metal (such as the mono-, di-, andtrisodium salts, and the mono-, di-, and tripotassium salts), andtrimethylsulfonium salts. Salts of N-phosphonomethylglycine arecommercially significant in part because they are water soluble. Thesalts listed immediately above are highly water soluble, therebyallowing for highly concentrated solutions that can be diluted at thesite of use. In accordance with the method of this invention as itpertains to glyphosate herbicide, an aqueous solution containing aherbicidally effective amount of glyphosate and other components inaccordance with the invention is applied to foliage of plants. Such anaqueous solution can be obtained by dilution of a concentratedglyphosate salt solution with water, or dissolution or dispersion inwater of a dry (e.g. granular, powder, tablet or briquette) glyphosateformulation.

Exogenous chemicals should be applied to plants at a rate sufficient togive the desired biological effect. These application rates are usuallyexpressed as amount of exogenous chemical per unit area treated, e.g.grams per hectare (g/ha). What constitutes a “desired effect” variesaccording to the standards and practice of those who investigate,develop, market and use a specific class of exogenous chemicals. Forexample, in the case of a herbicide, the amount applied per unit area togive 85% control of a plant species as measured by growth reduction ormortality is often used to define a commercially effective rate.

Herbicidal effectiveness is one of the biological effects that can beenhanced through this invention. “Herbicidal effectiveness,” as usedherein, refers to any observable measure of control of plant growth,which can include one or more of the actions of (1) killing, (2)inhibiting growth, reproduction or proliferation, and (3) removing,destroying, or otherwise diminishing the occurrence and activity ofplants.

The herbicidal effectiveness data set forth herein report “inhibition”as a percentage following a standard procedure in the art which reflectsa visual assessment of plant mortality and growth reduction bycomparison with untreated plants, made by technicians specially trainedto make and record such observations. In all cases, a single technicianmakes all assessments of percent inhibition within any one experiment ortrial. Such measurements are relied upon and regularly reported byMonsanto Company in the course of its herbicide business.

The selection of application rates that are biologically effective for aspecific exogenous chemical is within the skill of the ordinarnagricultural scientist. Those of skill in the art will likewiserecognize that individual plant conditions, weather and growingconditions, as well as the specific exogenous chemical and formulationthereof selected, will affect the efficacy achieved in practicing thisinvention. Useful application rates for exogenous chemicals employed candepend upon all of the above conditions. With respect to the use of themethod of this invention for glyphosate herbicide, much information isknown about appropriate application rates. Over two decades ofglyphosate use and published studies relating to such use have providedabundant information from which a weed control practitioner can selectglyphosate application rates that are herbicidally effective onparticular species at particular growth stages in particularenvironmental conditions.

Herbicidal compositions of glyphosate or derivatives thereof are used tocontrol a very wide variety of plants worldwide. Such compositions canbe applied to a plant in a herbicidally effective amount, and caneffectively control one or more plant species of one or more of thefollowing genera without restriction: Abutilon, Amaranthus, Artemisia,Asclepias, Avena, Axonopus, Borreria, Brachiaria, Brassica, Bromus,Chenopodium, Cirsium, Commelina, Convolvulus, Cynodon, Cyperus,Digitaria, Echinochloa, Eleusine, Elymus, Equisetum, Erodium,Helianthus, Imperata, Ipomoea, Kochia, Lolium, Malva, Oryza, Ottochloa,Panicum, Paspalum, Phalaris, Phragmites, Polygonum, Portulaca,Pteridium, Pueraria, Rubus, Salsola, Setaria, Sida, Sinapis, Sorghum,Triticum, Typha, Ulex, Xanthium, and Zea.

Particularly important species for which glyphosate compositions areused are exemplified without limitation by the following:

Annual broadleaves:

velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti)

pigweed (Amaranthus spp.)

buttonweed (Borreria spp.)

oilseed rape, canola, indian mustard, etc. (Brassica spp.)

commelina (Commelina spp.)

filaree (Erodium spp.)

sunflower (Helianthus spp.)

morningglory (Ipomoea spp.)

kochia (Kochia scoparia)

mallow (Malva spp.)

wild buckwheat, smartweed, etc. (Polygonum spp.)

purslane (Portulaca spp.)

russian thistle (Salsola spp.)

sida (Sida spp.)

wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis)

cocklebur (Xanthium spp.)

Annual narrowleaves:

wild oat (Avena fatua)

carpetgrass (Axonopus spp.)

downy brome (Bromus tectorum)

crabgrass (Digitaria spp.)

barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli)

goosegrass (Eleusine indica)

annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum)

rice (Oryza sativa)

ottochloa (Ottochloa nodosa)

bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum)

canarygrass (Phalaris spp.)

foxtail (Setaria spp.)

wheat (Triticum aestivum)

corn (Zea mays)

Perennial broadleaves:

mugwort (Artemisia spp.)

milkweed (Asclepias spp.)

canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

kudzu (Pueraria spp.)

Perennial narrowleaves:

brachiaria (Brachiaria spp.)

bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon)

yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus)

purple nutsedge (C. rotundus)

quackgrass (Elymus repens)

lalang (Imperata cylindrica)

perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)

guineagrass (Panicum maximum)

dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum)

reed (Phragmites spp.)

johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense)

cattail (Typha spp.)

Other perennials:

horsetail (Equisetum spp.)

bracken (Pteridium aquilinum)

blackberry (Rubus spp.)

gorse (Ulex europaeus)

Thus, the method of the present invention, as it pertains to glyphosateherbicide, can be useful on any of the above species.

Effectiveness in greenhouse tests, usually at exogenous chemical rateslower than those normally effective in the field, is a proven indicatorof consistency of field performance at normal use rates. However, eventhe most promising composition sometimes fails to exhibit enhancedperformance in individual greenhouse tests. As illustrated in theExamples herein, a pattern of enhancement emerges over a series ofgreenhouse tests; when such a pattern is identified this is strongevidence of biological enhancement that will be useful in the field.

Aggregate-forming substances useful as the first excipient substance incompositions of the present invention include a wide variety ofamphiphilic materials, of which three classes are preferred.

The first preferred class of aggregate-forming substances can be definedas amphiphilic liposome-forming substances. These include various lipidsof synthetic, animal, or plant origin, including phospholipids,ceramides, sphingolipids, dialkyl surfactants, and polymericsurfactants. A variety of these materials are known to those skilled inthe art, and are commercially available. Lecithins are particularly richin phospholipids and can be derived from a number of plant and animalsources. Soybean lecithin is one particular example of a relativelyinexpensive commercially available material that includes suchsubstances.

Many other substances have been described which can be used to formliposomes; the present invention includes compositions comprising anysuch liposome-forming substances, so long as other requirements set outabove are met, and use of such compositions for enhancing biologicaleffectiveness of exogenous chemicals applied to foliage of plants. Forexample, U.S. Pat. No. 5,580,859, incorporated here by reference,discloses liposome-forming substances having a cationic group, includingN-(2,3-di-(9-(Z)-octadecenyloxy))-prop-1-yl-N,N,N-trimethylarnmoniunchloride (DOTMA) and 1,2-bis(oleoyloxy)-3-(trimethylammonio)propane(DOTAP). Liposome-forming substances which are not themselves cationic,but do contain a cationic group as part of the hydrophilic moiety,include for example dioleoylphosphatidylcholine (DOPC) anddioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE). Liposome-forming substancesthat do not contain a cationic group includedioleoylphosphatidylglycerol (DOPG). Any of these liposome-formingsubstances can be used with or without the addition of cholesterol.

These substances contain portions that are hydrophilic and hydrophobicwithin the same molecule. They have the ability to self-assemble inaqueous solution or dispersion into structures that are more complexthan simple micelles. The nature of the aggregate that will be formedcan be related to the critical packing parameter P by the followingequation:

P=V/lA

where V is the volume of the hydrophobic tail of the molecule, l is theeffective length of the hydrophobic tail, and A is the area occupied bythe hydrophilic headgroup in the surface of the aggregate. The mostprobable self-assembled structures are spherical micelles when P is lessthan ⅓, rodlike micelles when P is between ⅓ and ½, lamellar when P isbetween 1 and ½, and inverse structures when P is greater than 1. Thepreferred materials in the present invention have P greater than ⅓.

Cationic liposome-forming substances having a hydrophobic moietycomprising two hydrocarbyl chains are accompanied by a counterion(anion), identified as Z in formulas I, II and III above. Any suitableanion can be used, including agriculturally acceptable anions such ashydroxide, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfate, phosphate and acetate. Ina specific embodiment where the exogenous chemical has a biologicallyactive anion, that anion can serve as the counterion for theliposome-forming substance. For example, glyphosate can be used in itsacid form together with the hydroxide of a cationic liposome-formingsubstance such as a compound of formula I.

Compounds of formula I known in the art to be liposome-forming includedistearyldimethylammonium chloride and bromide (also known in the art asDODAC and DODAB respectively). Compounds of formula II known in the artto be liposome-forming include DOTMA referenced above anddimyristooxypropyldimethylhydroxyethylammonium bromide (DMRIE).Compounds of formula III known in the art to be liposome-forming includedioleoyloxy-3-(dimethylammonio)propane (DODAP) and DOTAP referencedabove. Compounds of formula IV known in the art to be liposome-forminginclude DOPC and DOPE, both referenced above.

In many liposome-forming substances known in the art, the hydrophobichydrocarbyl chains are unsaturated, having one or more double bonds.Particularly commonly used in the pharmaceutical art are dioleyl ordioleoyl compounds. A potential problem with these is that in anoxidizing environment they become oxidized at the site of the doublebond. This can be inhibited by including in the formulation anantioxidant such as ascorbic acid. Alternatively the problem can beavoided by use of liposome-forming substances wherein a high proportionof the hydrophobic hydrocarbyl chains are fully saturated. Thus in apreferred embodiment of the invention, R¹ and R² in formulas I-IV areindependently saturated straight-chain alkyl groups. Particularlypreferred compositions use liposome-forming substances in which R¹ andR² are both palmityl (cetyl) or palmitoyl or, alternatively, are bothstearyl or stearoyl groups.

Phospholipids, because of their low cost and favorable environmentalproperties, are particularly favored among liposome-forming substancesin the method and compositions of the invention. Vegetable lecithins,such as soybean lecithin, have successfully been used in accordance withthe invention. The phospholipid content of the lecithin product canrange from about 10% to close to 100%. While acceptable results havebeen obtained with crude lecithin (10-20% phospholipid), it is generallypreferred to use lecithin that is at least partially de-oiled, so thatthe phospholipid content is in the region of about 45% or more. Highergrades. such as 95%, provide excellent results but the much higher costis unlikely to be justified for most applications.

The phospholipid component of lecithin, or any phospholipid compositionused in the present invention, may comprise one or more phosphatides ofnatural or synthetic origin. Each of these phosphatides is generally aphosphoric ester that on hydrolysis yields phosphoric acid, fattyacid(s), polyhydric alcohol and, typically, a nitrogenous base. Aphosphatide component may be present in a partially hydrolyzed form,e.g. as phosphatidic acid. Suitable phosphatides include, withoutlimitation, phosphatidylcholine, hydrogenated phosphatidylcholine,phosphatidylinositol, phosphatidylserine, phosphatidic acid,phosphatidylglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine, N-acylphosphatidylethanolamine, and mixtures of any of these.

In vegetable lecithins a high proportion of the hydrophobic hydrocarbylchains of the phospholipid compounds are typically unsaturated. Onepreferred embodiment of compositions in accordance with the presentinvention comprises both saturated phospholipid and unsaturatedphospholipid, with the weight ratio of saturated phospholipid tounsaturated phospholipid being greater than about 1:2. In variousparticularly preferred embodiments, (1) at least 50% by weight of thephospholipids are di-C₁₂₋₂₂-saturated alkanoyl phospholipid, (2) atleast 50% by weight of the phospholipids are di-C₁₆₋₁₈-saturatedalkanoyl phospholipid, (3) at least 50% by weight of the phospholipidsare distearoyl phospholipid, (4) at least 50% by weight of thephospholipids are dipalmitoyl phospholipid, or (5) at least 50% byweight of the phospholipids are distearoyl phosphatidylcholine,dipalmitoyl phosphatidylcholine, or a mixture thereof. Higherproportions of saturated alkanoyl phospholipids are generally found inlecithins of animal origin, such as for example egg yolk lecithin, thanin vegetable lecithins.

Phospholipids are known to be chemically unstable, at least in acidmedia, where they tend to degrade to their lyso-counterparts. Thus wherephospholipids rather than more stable liposome-forming substances areused, it is usually preferable to adjust the pH of the compositionupward. In the case of glyphosate compositions, the pH of a compositionbased on a mono-salt such as the monoisopropylammonium (IPA) salt istypically around 5 or lower. When phospholipids are used as the firstexcipient substance in a glyphosate composition of the invention, itwill therefore be preferable to raise the pH of the composition, forexample to around 7. Any convenient base can be used for this purpose;it will often be most convenient to use the same base as used in theglyphosate salt, for example isopropylamine in the case of glyphosateIPA salt.

Amphiphilic compounds useful as the first excipient substance herein arenot limited to those having two hydrophobic hydrocarbyl groups such asthe compounds of formulas I to IV. The second preferred class ofaggregate-forming substances useful in the invention are cationicsurfactant compounds having formula V above. In compounds of formula V,R⁸ unless perfluorinated preferably has from about 12 to about 18 carbonatoms. R⁸ is preferably perfluorinated. in which case it preferably hasfrom about 6 to about 12 carbon atoms. Preferably n is 3. R⁹ groups arepreferably methyl.

Sulfonylamino compounds of formula V are especially preferred. Suitableexamples include3-(((heptadecafluorooctyl)sulfonyl)amino)-N,N,N-trimethyl-1-propaminiumiodide, available for example as Fluorad FC-135 from 3M Company, and thecorresponding chloride. It is believed that Fluorad FC-754 of 3M Companyis the corresponding chloride.

Fluoro-organic surfactants such as the cationic types falling withinformula V belong to a functional category of surfactants known in theart as “superspreaders” or “superwetters”. As a class “superspreaders”or “superwetters” are very effective in reducing surface tension ofaqueous compositions containing relatively low concentrations of thesesurfactants. In many applications fluoro-organic surfactants cansubstitute for organosilicone surfactants which are likewise“superspreaders” or “superwetters”. An example is found in Europeanpatent application 0 394 211 which discloses that either organosiliconeor fluoro-organic surfactants can be used interchangeably in solidgranular formulations of pesticides to improve dissolution rate.

Two major problems have limited interest in “superspreaders” and“superwetters” by formulators of exogenous chemicals such as pesticides.The first is high unit cost. The second is that although surfactants ofthis finctional category can enhance performance of an exogenouschemical on some species, for example by assisting penetration of theexogenous chemical into the interior of leaves via stomata, they can beantagonistic, sometimes severely so, to performance of the sameexogenous chemical on other species.

Surprisingly, a subclass of fluoro-organic surfactants has now beenfound to be essentially non-antagonistic at concentrations whichnevertheless provide useful adjuvant effects. This subclass comprisescationic fluoro-organic surfactants of formula V and others having aproperty profile in common with those of formula V. The lack ofantagonism makes this subclass very different from other fluoro-organic“superspreaders” or “superwetters”. Further, it has been found thatthese non-antagonistic fluoro-organic surfactants can be useful atconcentrations low enough to be cost-effective. Data in the Examplesherein for compositions comprising Fluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754illustrate the unexpected properties of this subclass.

Derivatives of Fluorad FC-754, herein described as “FC-acetate” and“FC-salicylate,” have been prepared by the following procedure. (1) Thesolvent in a sample of Fluorad FC-754 is gently evaporated off byheating in a glass beaker at 70-80° C., to leave a solid residue. (2)The solid residue is allowed to cool to room temperature. (3) A 1 galiquot of the residue is placed in a centrifuge tube and dissolved in 5ml isopropanol. (4) A saturated solution of potassium hydroxide (KOH) isprepared in isopropanol. (5) This solution is added drop by drop to thesolution of FC-754 residue; this results in formation of a precipitateand addition of KOH solution continues until no further precipitateforms. (6) The tube is centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 5 minutes. (7) MoreKOH solution is added to check if precipitation is complete; if not, thetube is centrifuged again. (8) The supernatant is decanted into anotherglass tube. (9) A saturated solution of acetic acid (or salicylic acid)is prepared in isopropanol. (10) This solution is added to thesupernatant in an amount sufficient to lower pH to 7. (11) Isopropanolis evaporated from this neutralized solution by heating at 60° C. untilcompletely dry. (12) The residue (either the acetate or salicylate salt)is dissolved in a suitable amount of water and is then ready for use.

The third preferred class of aggregate-forming substance useful as thefirst excipient substance according to the present invention is along-chain alkylether surfactant having the formula VI above. R¹² can bebranched or unbranched, saturated or unsaturated. R¹² is preferablystraight chain saturated C₁₆ alkyl (cetyl) or straight chain saturatedC₁₈ alkyl (stearyl). In preferred alkylethers m is 0, n is an averagenumber from about 20 to about 40 and R¹³ is preferably hydrogen. Amongespecially preferred alkylether surfactants are those identified in theInternational Cosmetic Ingredient Directory as ceteth-20, ceteareth-20,ceteareth-27, steareth-20 and steareth-30.

Of the classes of aggregate-forming substance useful as the firstexcipient substance, not all give rise to anisotropic aggregates in oron a wax layer, as required by the present invention, when used as thesole excipient substance in the composition at a weight ratio of 1:3 to1:100 with the exogenous chemical. Many compounds of formulas V and VIare sufficient in the absence of a second excipient substance, but ingeneral the liposome-forming substances of formulas I to IV require thepresence of a second excipient substance to exhibit the requiredanisotropic behavior. However, even in the presence of a first excipientsubstance of formulas V or VI, there may be advantages in also includinga second excipient substance as herein defined.

The second excipient substance has one or more hydrophobic moieties. Ifthere is only one hydrophobic moiety, it is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkylgroup having about 6 to about 22 carbon atoms. If there is more than onehydrophobic moiety, each such moiety is a hydrocarbyl or haloalkyl grouphaving more than 2 carbon atoms, and the total number of carbon atoms inthe hydrophobic moieties is about 12 to about 40.

One class of second excipient substance useful in the present inventionis quaternary ammonium compounds. Among quaternary ammonium compoundsthat may be used are compounds of formula

N⁺(R¹⁶)(R¹⁷)(R¹⁸)(R¹⁹)Q⁻  VIII

where R¹⁶, R¹⁷, R¹⁸ and R¹⁹ are independently C₃₋₆ alkyl groups and Q isa suitable anion, such as for example hydroxide, chloride, bromide,iodide, sulfate, phosphate or acetate. In preferred compounds of formulaVIII all R groups are the same. Particularly preferred compounds offormula VIII are tetrabutylammonium salts. Where the exogenous chemicalcomprises a biologically active anion, a salt of formula VIII where Q isthat anion is an option providing both the exogenous chemical and secondexcipient substance. An example is the tetrabutylammonium salt ofglyphosate.

Other quaternary ammonium compounds that may be useful include compoundshaving a single C₁₂₋₂₂ hydrocarbyl group and three C₁₋₄ alkyl groupsattached to the quaternary nitrogen atom. One or more of the C₁₋₄ alkylgroups in such compounds can be replaced by a benzyl group. Specificexamples include cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and benzalkoniumchloride. Yet other quaternary ammonium compounds useful as the secondexcipient substance include compounds of formula I, where the firstexcipient substance is not of formula I.

Preferred quaternary ammonium compounds useful as the second excipientsubstance are compounds of formula V, where the first excipientsubstance is not of formula V. The same specific compounds of formula Vare especially preferred whether a compound of formula V is the first orthe second excipient substance. Particularly good results have beenobtained where the first excipient substance is lecithin and the secondexcipient substance is Fluorad FC-135 or FC-754 or chemical equivalentsthereof.

Another class of compound useful as the second excipient substance is anamide or ester of formula VII above.

R¹⁴ in formula VII is preferably aliphatic and has about 7 to about 21carbon atoms, more preferably about 13 to about 21 carbon atoms. It isespecially preferred that R¹⁴ be a saturated straight-chain alkyl group.R¹⁵ is preferably an aliphatic group having 1-6 carbon atoms, morepreferably alkyl or alkenyl having 2-4 carbon atoms. An especiallypreferred compound of formula VII for use as the second excipientsubstance is butyl stearate.

As compounds of formula VII, including butyl stearate, are generallyoily liquids, aqueous compositions containing them are typicallyemulsions having at least one aqueous phase and at least one oil phase,with the compound of formula VII being present predominantly in the oilphase. Such emulsions may be water-in-oil, oil-in-water orwater-in-oil-in-water (W/O/W) multiple emulsions.

Aqueous concentrate compositions where the first excipient substance isan alkylether of formula VI and the second excipient substance, ifpresent, is a fatty acid ester of formula VII are limited in the degreeto which an exogenous chemical such as glyphosate can be loaded. At somepoint, as the loading of exogenous chemical is increased, thecomposition will not remain suitably stable. Addition of a small amountof colloidal particulate to such compositions has surprisingly beenfound to greatly increase loading ability while retaining desiredstability. Oxides of silicon, aluminum and titanium are preferredcolloidal particulate materials. Particle size is preferably such thatspecific surface area is in the range from about 50 to about 400 m²/g.Where the exogenous chemical is glyphosate, the use of colloidalparticulate enables loadings of at least 30% by weight for compositionscontaining sufficient alkylether and fatty acid ester to show enhancedherbicidal effectiveness, or at least 40% for compositions containingalkylether but no fatty acid ester, and showing herbicidal effectivenessat least equal to current commercial products loaded at about 30%. Wehave found especially useful improvement in storage stability can beobtained using colloidal particulates having specific surface areabetween about 180 and about 400 m²/g.

Other means of improving stability of highly loaded compositionscomprising an alkylether of formula VI, with or without a fatty acidester, may also be possible and are within the scope of the presentinvention.

Compositions in accordance with the present invention are typicallyprepared by combining water. the exogenous chemical (unless it is aformulation which will not contain an exogenous chemical) and theaggregate-forming substance. Where the aggregate-forming substance isone that disperses readily in water, as is the case for example withFluorad FC-135 or Fluorad FC-754, simple mixing with mild agitation maybe sufficient. However, where the aggregate-forming substance requireshigh shear to disperse in water, as is the case for example with mostforms of lecithin, it is presently preferred to sonicate ormicrofluidize the aggregate-forming substance in water. This can be donebefore or after a surfactant and/or the exogenous chemical is added. Thesonication or microfluidization will generally produce liposomes orother aggregate structures other than simple micelles. The precisenature, including average size, of liposomes or other aggregates dependsamong other things on the energy input during sonication ormicrofluidization. Higher energy input generally results in smallerliposomes. Although it is possible to entrap or otherwise bind looselyor tightly the exogenous chemical in or on liposomes or with othersupramolecular aggregates, the exogenous chemical does not need to be soentrapped or bound, and in fact the present invention is effective whenthe exogenous chemical is not entrapped or bound in the aggregates atall.

In a particular embodiment of the invention, the liposomes or otheraggregates have an average diameter of at least 20 nm, more preferablyat least 30 nm. We have determined by light scattering that certainliposomal compositions of the invention have average liposome diametersranging from 54 to 468 nm as calculated using linear fit and from 38 to390 nm as calculated using quadratic fit.

The concentrations of the various components will vary, in partdepending on whether a concentrate is being prepared that will befurther diluted before spraying onto a plant, or whether a solution ordispersion is being prepared that can be sprayed without furtherdilution.

In an aqueous glyphosate formulation that includes a dialkyl surfactant,for example a cationic dialkyl surfactant of formula I. suitableconcentration ranges are: glyphosate 0.1-400 grams acid equivalent(a.e.)/liter, and dialkyl surfactant 0.001-10% by weight. In an aqueousglyphosate formulation using a cationic fluoro-organic surfactant andlecithin, suitable concentrations can be: glyphosate 0.1-400 g a.e./l,fluoro-organic surfactant 0.001-10% by weight, and soybean lecithin0.001-10% by weight.

In an aqueous glyphosate formulation that includes a C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylethersurfactant and butyl stearate, suitable concentrations can be:glyphosate 0.1-400 g a.e./l, alkylether surfactant 0.001-10% by weight,and butyl stearate 0.001-10% by weight. To achieve the higherconcentrations in these ranges it is often beneficial to add otheringredients to provide acceptable storage stability, for examplecolloidal particulate silica or aluminum oxide at 0.5-2.5% by weight. Inan aqueous glyphosate formulation that includes a C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylethersurfactant but no butyl stearate, glyphosate concentration can suitablybe increased to 500 g a.e./l or more, in the presence of a colloidalparticulate at 0.5-2.5% by weight.

In solid glyphosate formulations, higher concentrations of ingredientsare possible because of the elimination of most of the water.

Weight/weight ratios of ingredients may be more important than absoluteconcentrations. For example, in a glyphosate formulation containinglecithin and a cationic fluoro-organic surfactant, the ratio of lecithinto glyphosate a.e. is in the range from about 1:3 to about 1:100. It isgenerally preferred to use a ratio of lecithin to glyphosate a.e. closeto as high as can be incorporated in the formulation while maintainingstability, in the presence of an amount of the fluoro-organic surfactantsufficient to give the desired enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness.For example, a lecithin/glyphosate a.e. ratio in the range from about1:3 to about 1:10 will generally be found useful, although lower ratios,from about 1:10 to about 1:100 can have benefits on particular weedspecies in particular situations. The ratio of fluoro-organicsurfactant, when present, to glyphosate a.e. is likewise preferably inthe range from about 1:3 to about 1:100. Because fluoro-organicsurfactants tend to have relatively high cost, it will generally bedesirable to keep this ratio as low as possible consistent withachieving the desired herbicidal effectiveness.

The ratio of fluoro-organic surfactant where present, to lecithin ispreferably in the range from about 1:10 to about 10:1, more preferablyin the range from about 1:3 to about 3:1 and most preferably around 1:1.The ranges disclosed herein can be used by one of skill in the art toprepare compositions of the invention having suitable concentrations andratios of ingredients. Preferred or optimum concentrations and ratios ofingredients for any particular use or situation can be determined byroutine experimentation.

Although the combination of the components might be done in a tank mix,it is preferred in the present invention that the combination be madefurther in advance of the application to the plant, in order to simplifythe tasks required of the person who applies the material to plants. Wehave found, however, that in some cases the biological effectiveness ofa liposome-containing composition prepared from scratch as a dilutespray composition is superior to that of a composition having the sameingredients at the same concentrations but diluted from a previouslyprepared concentrate formulation.

Although various compositions of the present invention are describedherein as comprising certain listed materials, in some preferredembodiments of the invention the compositions consist essentially of theindicated materials.

Optionally, other agriculturally acceptable materials can be included inthe compositions. For example, more than one exogenous chemical can beincluded. Also, various agriculturally acceptable adjuvants can beincluded, whether or not their purpose is to directly contribute to theeffect of the exogenous chemical on a plant. For example, when theexogenous chemical is a herbicide, liquid nitrogen fertilizer orammonium sulfate might be included in the composition. As anotherexample, stabilizers can be added to the composition. In some instancesit might be desirable to include microencapsulated acid in thecomposition, to lower the pH of a spray solution on contact with a leaf.One or more surfactants can also be included. Surfactants mentioned hereby trade name, and other surfactants that can be useful in the method ofthe invention, are indexed in standard reference works such asMcCutcheon's Emulsifiers and Detergents, 1997 edition, Handbook ofIndustrial Surfactants, 2nd Edition, 1997, published by Gower, andInternational Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1995.

The compositions of the present invention can be applied to plants byspraying, using any conventional means for spraying liquids, such asspray nozzles, atomizers, or the like. Compositions of the presentinvention can be used in precision farming techniques, in whichapparatus is employed to vary the amount of exogenous chemical appliedto different parts of a field, depending on variables such as theparticular plant species present, soil composition, and the like. In oneembodiment of such techniques, a global positioning system operated withthe spraying apparatus can be used to apply the desired amount of thecomposition to different parts of a field.

The composition at the time of application to plants is preferablydilute enough to be readily sprayed using standard agricultural sprayequipment. Preferred application rates for the present invention varydepending upon a number of factors, including the type and concentrationof active ingredient and the plant species involved. Useful rates forapplying an aqueous composition to a field of foliage can range fromabout 25 to about 1,000 liters per hectare (l/ha) by spray application.The preferred application rates for aqueous solutions are in the rangefrom about 50 to about 300 l/ha.

Many exogenous chemicals (including glyphosate herbicide) must be takenup by living tissues of the plant and translocated within the plant inorder to produce the desired biological (e.g., herbicidal) effect. Thus,it is important that a herbicidal composition not be applied in such amanner as to excessively injure and interrupt the normal functioning ofthe local tissue of the plant so quickly that translocation is reduced.However, some limited degree of local injury can be insignificant, oreven beneficial, in its impact on the biological effectiveness ofcertain exogenous chemicals.

A large number of compositions of the invention are illustrated in theExamples that follow. Many concentrate compositions of glyphosate haveprovided sufficient herbicidal effectiveness in greenhouse tests towarrant field testing on a wide variety of weed species under a varietyof application conditions. Water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsioncompositions tested in the field have included:

% w/w Fatty Type of Field Glyphos- acid Emulsi- Emulsi- % in inner aq.phase Emulsifier Emulsifier fatty acid composition ate g a.e./l esterfier #1 fier #2 Water Glyphosate #1 #2 ester F-1 100 18.0 3.0 5.0 13.820 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearate F-2 100 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.6 20 Span 80 Tween20 Bu stearate F-3 100 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.6 0 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearateF-4 160 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.6 0 Span 80 Tween 20 Bu stearate

The above compositions were prepared by process (vi) as described in theExamples.

Aqueous compositions tested in the field having an alkylether surfactantas the first excipient substance and/or containing a fatty acid esterhave included:

% w/w Field Fatty Type of compo- Glyphosate acid Surfac- Type of fattyacid sition g a.e./l ester tant surfactant ester F-5  163 1.0 10.0oleth-20 Bu stearate F-6  163 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 Bu stearate F-7  163 1.010.0 Neodol 25-20 Bu stearate F-8  163 1.0 10.0 steareth-20 Bu stearateF-9  163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 Bu stearate F-10 105 7.5 10.0 Tween 80 Bustearate F-11 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 Bu stearate F-12 163 0.3 5.0 oleth-20Bu stearate F-13 163 0.3 2.5 oleth-20 Bu stearate F-14 163 1.0 10.0Neodol 25-12 Bu stearate F-15 163 0.3 5.0 Genapol UD-110 Bu stearateF-16 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 Bu stearate F-17 163 0.5 5.0 ceteth-20 Bustearate F-18 163 0.5 5.0 laureth-23 Bu stearate F-19 163 0.5 5.0ceteareth-27 Bu stearate F-20 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-12 Bu stearate F-21163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-20 Bu stearate F-22 163 5.0 steareth-20 F-23 1635.0 ceteth-20 F-24 163 5.0 laureth-23 F-25 163 0.3 5.0 ceteareth-27 Bustearate F-26 163 0.3 2.5 ceteareth-27 Bu stearate F-27 163 5.0ceteareth-27 F-28 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 Me stearate F-29 163 0.5 5.0steareth-20 Me stearate F-30 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 F-31 163 0.5 5.0Neodol 45-13 Bu stearate F-32 163 5.0 Neodol 45-13 F-33 163 0.5 5.0ceteareth-15 Bu stearate F-34 163 5.0 ceteareth-15 F-35 163 0.5 5.0steareth-30 Bu stearate

The above compositions were prepared by process (vii) if they containfatty acid ester and by process (viii) if they do not. Both processesare described in the Examples.

Aqueous compositions tested in the field containing colloidalparticulates have included:

% w/w Fatty Type of Type of Field Glyphosate acid Sur- Coll. Type ofcolloidal fatty acid Other composition g a.e./l ester factant partic.Other surfactant particulate ester ingredients F-36 360 1.0 10.0 1.3steareth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-37 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 oleth-20Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-38 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 Bustearate F-39 360 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 F-40 360 0.8 Aerosil90 F-41 350 0.8 Al oxide C F-42 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25F-43 360 3.0 0.1 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-44 360 0.3 Al oxide C F-45360 3.0 0.3 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-46 360 6.0 0.8 Agrimul Al oxide CPG-2069 F-47 360 3.0 0.8 Tween 20 Al oxide C F-48 480 1.0 0.4 Neodol 1-7Aerosil 90 F-49 480 2.0 0.4 Agrimul Aerosil 90 PG-2069 F-50 360 1.0 10.01.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Bu stearate 15 F-51 360 1.0 10.0 1.3ceteth-20 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-52 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-20Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-53 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 Bustearate F-54 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Bu stearate 27F-55 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 Bu stearate F-56 360 10.01.3 steareth-30 Aerosil 380 F-57 360 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27F-58 360 10.0 1.3 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-59 360 10.0 1.3 oleth-20Aerosil 380 F-60 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Me stearate 27F-61 360 1.0 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 Me palmitate 27 F-62 30010.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-63 240 10.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil380 27 F-64 360 6.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-65 300 6.0 1.3ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27 F-66 240 6.0 1.3 ceteareth- Aerosil 380 27F-67 360 0.6 Aerosil 90 F-68 360 3.1 Aerosil 90 F-69 360 0.6 Al oxide CF-70 360 3.1 Al oxide C F-71 360 0.8 Aerosil 90 F-72 360 0.8 Al oxide CF-73 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Aerosil 90 T/25 F-74 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Aloxide C T/25 F-75 360 3.0 0.3 Ethomeen Al oxide C T/25 F-76 360 3.0 0.8Ethomeen Nalco 1056 T/25 F-77 360 3.0 0.8 Ethomeen Nalco 1056 C/25 F-78480 3.0 + 0.4 Ethomeen Al oxide C 1.0 T/25 + Agrimul PG-2069 F-79 4803.0 + 0.4 Ethomeen Al oxide C 3.0 T/25 + Agrimul PG-2069 F-80 360 3.00.8 Agrimul Aerosil 90 PG-2069 F-81 360 3.0 0.8 Tween 20 Aerosil 90 F-82360 3.1 + 0.8 7.1 Ethomeen Aerosil 90 (Bu)₄NOH 3.1 T/25 + Tween 20 F-83360 0.8 7.1 Aerosil 90 (Bu)₄NOH F-84 480 3.0 0.8 steareth-20 Aerosil 380F-85 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 F-86 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 AerosilMOX-170 F-87 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil OX-50 F-88 480 3.0 1.5Velvetex Aerosil 380 AB-45 F-89 480 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blendF-90 480 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-91 480 4.5 1.5 oleth-20Aerosil 380 F-92 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-93 480 3.0 1.5steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-94 480 1.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1F-95 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-96 480 4.5 1.5 0.5steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2 glycol F-97 480 6.0 1.5 0.5steareth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2 glycol F-98 480 6.0 1.5 0.5oleth-20 Aerosil blend propylene 2 glycol F-99 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5steareth-20 + Aerosil blend propylene 2.3 Ethomeen 2 glycol T/25 F-100480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Al oxide C F-101 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 +Al oxide C propylene 2.3 Ethomeen glycol T/25 F-102 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5steareth-20 + Al oxide C propylene 1.0 Ethomeen glycol T/25 F-103 4803.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-104 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 Al oxide CF-105 480 6.0 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-106 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5steareth-20 + Aerosil 380 propylene 1.0 Ethomeen glycol T/25 F-107 4804.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 + Aerosil 380 propylene 2.3 Ethomeen glycolT/25 F-108 480 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-109 480 6.0 1.5steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-110 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 +Aerosil blend propylene 1.0 Ethomeen 2 glycol T/25 F-111 480 4.5 1.5steareth-30 Aerosil blend 2 F-112 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 +Aerosil blend propylene 1.0 Ethomeen 2 glycol T/25 F-113 480 6.0 1.5steareth-30 Aerosil blend 2 F-114 480 4.5 + 1.5 0.5 steareth-20 +Aerosil blend propylene 2.3 Ethomeen 2 glycol T/25 F-115 480 10.0 1.5steareth-20 Aerosil blend 2 F-116 480 4.5 1.5 ceteareth-27 Aerosil 380F-117 480 6.0 1.5 ceteareth-27 Aerosil 380 F-118 480 4.5 1.5ceteareth-27 Aerosil blend 2 F-119 480 6.0 1.5 ceteareth-27 Aerosilblend 2 F-120 480 4.5 1.5 ceteareth-27 Al oxide C F-121 480 6.0 1.5ceteareth-27 Al oxide C Aerosil blend 1: Aerosil MOX-80 + AerosilMOX-170 (1:1) Aerosil blend 2: Aerosil MOX-80 + Aerosil 380 (1:2)

The above compositions were prepared by process (ix) as described in theExamples.

Aqueous compositions tested in the field having soybean lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti) as the first excipient substance and a cationicfluoro-organic surfactant as the second excipient substance haveincluded:

% w/w Field Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad composition g a.e./l LecithinFC-135 FC-754 MON 0818 F-122 167 6.0 8.3 4.0 F-123 168 6.0 8.3 4.0 F-124228 2.0 2.0 0.5 F-125 347 3.0 3.0 0.5 F-126 344 1.0 1.0 0.5 F-127 1118.0 8.0 0.5 F-128 228 6.0 3.0 6.0 F-129 228 6.0 6.0 6.0 F-130 228 3.35.0 0.5 F-131 228 5.0 5.0 0.8 F-132 372 3.0 3.0 0.8 F-133 372 3.0 5.00.8 F-134 372 3.0 12.0 0.8

The above compositions were prepared by process (v) as described in theExamples.

Aqueous compositions tested in the field having soybean lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti) as the first excipient substance and fatty acidester as the second excipient substance have included:

% w/w Field Glyphosate MON Fatty acid Type of Type of composition ga.e./l Lecithin 0818 ester Surfactant surfactant fatty acid ester F-135360 0.5 6.0 7.5 6.0 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-136 360 6.0 4.5 1.53.0 + 4.5 ceteareth-27 + Bu stearate Ethomeen T/25 F-137 228 6.0 3.0 1.53.0 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-138 228 0.8 3.8 3.0 + 3.0 ceteareth-27 +Bu stearate Ethomeen T/25 F-139 228 1.5 1.5 3.0 + 3.0 ceteareth-27 + Bustearate Ethomeen T/25 F-140 228 6.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 Ethomeen T/25 Bustearate F-141 228 6.7 1.7 0.7 1.7 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-142 2286.7 3.3 0.7 3.3 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-143 228 3.3 0.8 0.7 0.8Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-144 228 3.3 1.7 0.7 1.7 Ethomeen T/25 Bustearate F-145 228 3.3 2.5 0.7 2.5 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-146 2283.3 3.3 0.7 3.3 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-147 228 6.7 2.5 0.7 2.5Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-148 228 3.0 0.5 3.0 Ethomeen T/25 Bustearate F-149 228 2.0 2.5 0.5 2.5 Ethomeen T/25 Bu stearate F-150 2284.0 6.0 0.5 Bu stearate F-151 228 4.0 6.0 2.0 Bu stearate F-152 228 4.06.0 1.0 Bu stearate F-153 228 2.0 2.0 0.5 Bu stearate F-154 228 2.0 4.00.5 Bu stearate F-155 228 6.0 0.5 Bu stearate

The above compositions were prepared by process (x) as described in theExamples.

Dry compositions tested in the field have included:

% w/w Type of Field Glyphos- Butyl Surfac- Coll. Type of colloidal Othercomposition ate a.e. Lecithin stearate tant partic. Other surfactantparticulate ingredients F-156 64 25.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1F-157 68 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-158 72 15.0 2.0steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-159 64 25.0 1.0 ceteth-20 Aerosil 380F-160 65 25.0 1.0 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 F-161 65 25.0 1.0 oleth-20Aerosil 380 F-162 67 10.0 10.0 + 1.0 Fluorad Aerosil 380 1.5 FC-754 +Ethomeen T/25 F-163 73 7.0 7.0 + 1.0 Fluorad Aerosil 380 1.5 FC-754 +Ethomeen T/25 F-164 64 12.0 3.0 12.0 MON 0818 F-165 64 6.7 6.7 13.2 MON0818 F-166 68 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-167 66 2.0 20.0 2.0steareth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-168 68 20.0 2.0 oleth-20 Aerosil blend 1F-169 66 2.0 20.0 2.0 oleth-20 Aerosil blend 1 F-170 66 2.0 20.0 2.0ceteareth-27 Aerosil blend 1 F-171 48 14.1 36.1 ceteareth-27 NH₄phosphate F-172 65 20.0 5.0 ceteareth-27 Na acetate F-173 70 20.0ceteareth-27 Aerosil blend 1: Aerosil MOX-80 + Aerosil MOX-170 (1:1)

The above compositions were prepared by the process described for drygranular compositions in the Examples.

EXAMPLES

In the following Examples illustrative of the invention, greenhousetests were conducted to evaluate relative herbicidal effectiveness ofglyphosate compositions. Compositions included for comparative purposesincluded the following:

Formulation B: which consists of 41% by weight of glyphosate IPA salt inaqueous solution. This formulation is sold in the USA by MonsantoCompany under the ACCORD® trademark.

Formulation C: which consists of 41% by weight of glyphosate IPA salt inaqueous solution with a coformulant (15% by weight) of a surfactant (MON0818 of Monsanto Company) based on polyoxyethylene (15) tallowamine.This formulation is sold in Canada by Monsanto Company under theROUNDUP® trademark.

Formulation J: which consists of 41% by weight of glyphosate IPA salt inaqueous solution, together with surfactant. This formulation is sold inthe USA by Monsanto Company under the ROUNDUP® ULTRA trademark.

Formulation K: which consists of 75% by weight of glyphosate ammoniurnsalt together with surfactant, as a water-soluble dry granularformulation. This formulation is sold in Australia by Monsanto Companyunder the ROUNDUP® DRY trademark.

Formulations B, C and J contain 356 grams of glyphosate acid equivalentper liter (g a.e./l). Formulation K contains 680 grams of glyphosateacid equivalent per kilogram (g a.e./kg).

Various propnetary excipients were used in compositions of the Examples.They may be identified as follows:

Trade name Manufacturer Chemical description Aerosil 90 Degussaamorphous silica, 90 m²/g Aerosil 200 Degussa amorphous silica, 200 m²/gAerosil 380 Degussa amorphous silica, 380 m²/g Aerosil MOX-80 Degussaamorphous silica/aluminum oxide, 80 m²/gm Aerosil MOX-170 Degussaamorphous silica/aluminum oxide, 170 m²/g Aerosil OX-50 Degussaamorphous silica, 50 m²/g Aerosil R-202 Degussa amorphous hydrophobicsilica (dimethylsiloxane surface group) Aerosil R-805 Degussa amorphoushydrophobic silica (octyl surface group) Aerosil R-812 Degussa amorphoushydrophobic silica (trimethylsilyl surface group) Aerosol OS Cytecdiisopropyl naphthalene sulfonate, Na salt Aerosoi OT Cytec dioctylsulfosuccinate, Na salt Agrimer AL-25 ISP i-ethenylhexadecyl-2-pyrrolidinone Agrimer AL-30 ISP i-ethenyl-2-pyrrolidinonepolymer Agrimul PG-2069 Henkel C₉₋₁₁ alkylpolyglycoside Alcodet 218Rhone-Poulenc isolauryl 10EO thioether Aluminum Degussa aluminum oxide,oxide C 100 m²/g Amidox L-5 Stepan lauramide 5EO Ammonyx CO Stepanpalmitamine oxide Ammonyx LO Stepan lauramine oxide Arcosolve DPM Arcodipropyleneglycol monomethyl ether Diacid 1550 Westvacocyclocarboxypropyl oleic acid Dowanol PNB Dow propylene glycol n-butylether Dowanol TPNB Dow tripropylene glycol n-butyl ether Emerest 2421Henkel glyceryl oleate Emerest 2661 Henkel PEG-12 laurate Emid 6545Henkel oleic diethanolamide Emphos CS-121 Witco alkylaryl ethoxylatephosphate ester Emphos CS-131 Witco alkylaryl ethoxylate phosphate esterEmphos CS-141 Witco nonylphenol 10EO phosphate Emphos CS-330 Witcoalkylaryl ethoxylate phosphate ester Emphos PS-21A Witco alcoholethoxylate phosphate ester Emphos PS-121 Witco linear alcohol ethoxylatephosphate ester, acid form Emphos PS-400 Witco linear alcohol ethoxylatephosphate ester, acid form Ethomeen C/12 Akzo cocoamine 2EO EthomeenC/25 Akzo cocoamine 15EO Ethomeen T/12 Akzo tallowamine 2EO EthomeenT/25 Akzo tallowamine 15EO Ethoquad T/20 Akzo methyltallowammoniumchloride 10EO Exxate 700 Exxon C₇ alkyl acetate Exxate 1000 Exxon C₁₀alkyl acetate Exxol D-130 Exxon dearomatized aliphatic solvent FluoradFC-120 3M C₉₋₁₀ perfluoroalkyl sulfonate, NH4 salt Fluorad FC-129 3Mfluorinated alkyl carboxylate, K salt Fluorad FC-135 3M fluorinatedalkyl quaternary ammonium iodide Fluorad FC-170C 3M fluorinated alkanolEO Fluorad FC-171 3M fluorinated alkanol EO Fluorad FC-431 3Mfluorinated alkyl ester Fluorad FC-750 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternaryammonium iodide Fluorad FC-751 3M fluorinated amphoteric surfactantFluorad FC-754 3M fluorinated alkyl quaternary ammonium chloride FluoradFC-760 3M fluorinated alkanol EO Genapol UD-030 Hoechst C₁₁ oxo alcohol3EO Genapol UD-110 Hoechst C₁₁ oxo alcohol 11EO Isopar V Exxonisoparaffinic oil Kelzan Monsanto xanthan gum LI-700 Lovelandlecithin-based adjuvant Makon 4 Stepan nonylphenol 4EO Makon 6 Stepannonylphenol 6EO Makon 30 Stepan nonylphenol 30EO Makon NF-5 Stepanpolyalkoxylated aliphatic base MON 0818 Monsanto tallowamine 15EO-basedsurfactant Myrj 52 ICI PEG-40 stearate Myrj 59 ICI PEG-100 stearateNalco 1056 Nalco silica (26%)/aluminum oxide (4%); average particle size20 nm Neodol 1-12 Shell C₁₁ linear alcohol 12EO Neodol 1-7 Shell C₁₁linear alcohol 7EO Neodol 1-9 Shell C₁₁ linear alcohol 9EO Neodol 25-12Shell C₁₂₋₁₅ linear alcohol 12EO Neodol 25-20 Shell C₁₂₋₁₅ linearalcohol 20EO Neodol 25-3 Shell C₁₂₋₁₅ linear alcohol 3EO Neodol 25-7Shell C₁₂₋₁₅ linear alcohol 7EO Neodol 25-9 Shell C₁₂₋₁₅ linear alcohol9EO Neodol 45-13 Shell C₁₄₋₁₅ linear alcohol 13EO Neodol 91-2.5 ShellC₉₋₁₁ linear alcohol 2.5EO Neodox 25-11 Shell C₁₂₋₁₅ linear alcoholethoxycarboxylate 11EO Ninate 411 Stepan amine dodecylbenezene sulfonateNinol 40-CO Stepan coco diethanolamide Orchex 796 Exxon paraffinic oilPluronic 31-R1 BASF 21PO-7EO-21PO block copolymer Pluronic F-108 BASF128EO-54PO-128EO block copolymer Pluronic F-127 BASF 98EO-67PO-98EOblock copolymer Pluronic F-68 BASF 75EO-3OPO-75EO block copolymerPluronic L-35 BASF 11EO-16PO-11EO block copolymer Pluronic L-43 BASF7EO-21PO-7EO block copolymer Pluronic L-81 BASF 6EO-39PO-6EO blockcopolymer Pluronic P-84 BASF 27EO-39PO-27EO block copolymer PolystepB-25 Stepan decyl sulfate, Na salt Reax 88B Westvaco highly sulfonatedlignin, Na salt Sident 9 Degussa abrasive silica, 50 m²/g Silwet 800Witco heptamethyltrisiloxane EO Silwet L-77 Witco heptamethyltrisiloxane7EO methyl ether Simulsol SL-4 Seppic alkyl polyglucoside Simulsol SL-10Seppic alkyl polyglucoside Simulsol SL-62 Seppic alkyl polyglucosideSipernat 22 Degussa hydrophilic precipitated silica, 190 m²/g, av.aggregate size 100 μm Sipernat 22S Degussa hydrophilic precipitatedsilica, 190 m²/g, av. aggregate size <10 μm Span 60 ICI sorbitanmonostearate Span 65 ICI sorbitan tristearate Span 80 ICI sorbitanmonooleate Span 85 ICI sorbitan trioleate Steol CS-370 Stepan lauryl EOsulfate, Na salt Stepanol WAC Stepan lauryl sulfate, Na salt Stepfac8170 Stepan nonylphenol EO phosphate Surfynol 104 Air Productstetramethyldecyne diol Surfynol 465 Air Products tetramethyldecyne diol10EO Tergitol 15-S-15 Union Carbide C₁₅ branched secondary alcohol 15EOTergitol 15-S-20 Union Carbide C₁₅ branched secondary alcohol 20EOTergitol 15-S-30 Union Carbide C₁₅ branched secondary alcohol 30EOTergitol 15-S-40 Union Carbide C₁₅ branched secondary alcohol 40EOTitanium dioxide Degussa titanium dioxide, average P25 particle size 21nm Toximul 8240 Stepan PEG-36 castor oil Toximul 8302 Stepan alcohol EOblend Triton RW-20 Union Carbide alkylamine 2EO Triton RW-50 UnionCarbide alkylamine 5EO Triton RW-75 Union Carbide alkylamine 7.5EOTriton RW-100 Union Carbide alkylamine 10EO Triton RW-150 Union Carbidealkylamine 15EO Tryfac 5552 Henkel decyl EO phosphate, free acid Tween20 ICI sorbitan monolaurate 20EO Tween 40 ICI sorbitan monopalmitate20EO Tween 80 ICI sorbitan monooleate 20EO Tween 85 ICI sorbitantrioleate 20EO Velvetex AB-45 Henkel cocobetaine Westvaco H-240 Westvacodicarboxylate surfactant, K salt

Fluorad FC-135, though defined only generically as above in 3M productliterature and in standard directories, has been specifically identifiedas

C₈F₁₇SO₂NH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻

in a paper by J. Linert & J. N. Chasman of 3M, titled “The effects offluorochemical surfactants on recoatability” in the Dec. 20, 1993 issueof American Paint & Coatings Journal, and reprinted as a trade brochureby 3M. Fluorad FC-750 is believed to be based on the same surfactant.Fluorad FC-754 is believed to have the structure

C₈F₁₇SO₂NH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃Cl⁻

that is, identical to Fluorad FC-135 but with a chloride anion replacingiodide.

The following surfactants, identified in the Examples as “Surf H1” to“Surf H5”, have hydrocarbyl groups as the hydrophobic moiety butotherwise bear some structural similarity to the above Fluoradsurfactants. They were synthesized and characterized under contract toMonsanto Company.

Surf H1: C₁₂H₂₅SO₂NH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻

Surf H2: C₁₇H₃₅CONH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻

Surf H3: C₁₁H₂₃CONH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻

Surf H4: cis-C₈H₁₇CH═CH(CH₂)₃CONH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻

Surf H5: C₇H₁₅CONH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻

Fatty alcohol ethoxylate surfactants are referred to in the Examples bytheir generic names as given in the International Cosmetic IngredientDictionary, 6th Edition, 1995 (Cosmetic, Toiletry and FragranceAssociation, Washington, DC). They were interchangeably sourced fromvarious manufacturers, for example:

Laureth-23: Brij 35 (ICI), Trycol 5964 (Henkel).

Ceteth-10: Brij 56 (ICI).

Ceteth-20: Brij 58 (ICI).

Steareth-10: Brij 76 (ICI).

Steareth-20: Brij 78 (ICI), Emthox 5888-A (Henkel), STA-20 (Heterene).

Steareth-30: STA-30 (Heterene).

Steareth-100: Brij 700 (ICI).

Ceteareth-15: CS-15 (Heterene).

Ceteareth-20: CS-20 (Heterene).

Ceteareth-27: Plurafac A-38 (BASF).

Ceteareth-55: Plurafac A-39 (BASF).

Oleth-2: Brij 92 (ICI).

Oleth-10: Brij 97 (ICI).

Oleth-20: Brij 98 (ICI), Trycol 5971 (Henkel).

Where a proprietary excipient is a surfactant supplied as a solution inwater or other solvent, the amount to be used was calculated on a truesurfactant basis, not an “as is” basis. For example, Fluorad FC-135 issupplied as 50% true surfactant, together with 33% isopropanol and 17%water; thus to provide a composition containing 0.1% w/w Fluorad FC-135as reported herein, 0.2 g of the product as supplied was included in 100g of the composition.

Spray compositions of the Examples contained an exogenous chemical, suchas glyphosate IPA salt, in addition to the excipient ingredients listed.The amount of exogenous chemical was selected to provide the desiredrate in grams per hectare (g/ha) when applied in a spray volume of 93l/ha. Several exogenous chemical rates were applied for eachcomposition. Thus, except where otherwise indicated, when spraycompositions were tested, the concentration of exogenous chemical variedin direct proportion to exogenous chemical rate, but the concentrationof excipient ingredients was held constant across different exogenouschemical rates.

Concentrate compositions were tested by dilution, dissolution ordispersion in water to form spray compositions. In these spraycompositions prepared from concentrates, the concentration of excipientingredients varied with that of exogenous chemical.

Except where otherwise indicated, these aqueous spray compositions wereprepared by one of the following processes (i), (ii) or (iii).

(i) For compositions not containing lecithin or phospholipids, aqueouscompositions were prepared by simple mixing of ingredients under mildagitation.

(ii) A weighed quantity of lecithin in powder form was dissolved in 0.4ml chloroform in a 100 ml bottle. The resulting solution was air-driedto leave a thin film of lecithin, to which was added 30 ml deionizedwater. The bottle and its contents were then sonicated in a Fisher SonicDismembrator, Model 550, fitted with a 2.4 cm probe tip, set at outputlevel 8, and operated continuously for 3 minutes. The resulting aqueousdispersion of lecithin was then allowed to cool to room temperature, andformed a lecithin stock which was later mixed in the required amountswith other ingredients under mild agitation. In some cases, as indicatedin the Examples, certain ingredients were added to the lecithin in waterbefore sonication, so that the lecithin and these ingredients weresonicated together. Without being bound by theory, it is believed thatby sonicating a formulation ingredient together with lecithin, at leastsome of that ingredient becomes encapsulated within, or otherwise boundto or trapped by, vesicles or other aggregates formed by phospholipidspresent in the lecithin.

(iii) The procedure of process (ii) was followed except that. beforesonication, the step of forming a lecithin solution in chloroform wasomitted. Instead, lecithin in powder form was placed in a beaker, waterwas added and the beaker and its contents were then sonicated.

Except where otherwise indicated, aqueous concentrate compositions wereprepared by one of the following processes (iv) to (x).

(iv) A weighed amount of lecithin powder of the type indicated wasplaced in a beaker and deionized water was added in no more than theamount required for the desired final composition. The beaker and itscontents were then placed in a Fisher Sonic Dismembrator, Model 550,fitted with a 2.4 cm probe tip, set at output level 8, and operated for5 minutes. The resulting lecithin dispersion formed the basis to whichother ingredients were added with mild agitation to make the aqueousconcentrate formulation. The order of addition of these ingredients wasvaried and was sometimes found to affect the physical stability of theconcentrate formulation. Where a fluoro-organic surfactant such asFluorad FC-135 or FC-754 was to be included, it was generally addedfirst, followed by other surfactants if required and then by theexogenous chemical. Where the exogenous chemical used was glyphosate IPAsalt, this was added in the form of a 62% (45% a.e.) solution by weight,at a pH of 4.4 to 4.6. A final adjustment with water took place ifnecessary as the last step. In some cases certain ingredients of theconcentrate formulation were added before rather than after sonication,so that they were sonicated with the lecithin.

(v) A weighed amount of lecithin powder of the type indicated was placedin a beaker and deionized water was added in sufficient quantity toprovide, after sonication as detailed below, a lecithin stock at aconvenient concentration, normally in the range from 10% to 20% w/w andtypically 15% w/w. The beaker and its contents were then placed in aFisher Sonic Dismembrator, Model 550, fitted with a 2.4 cm probe tipwith the pulse period set at 15 seconds with 1 minute intervals betweenpulses to allow cooling. Power output was set at level 8. After a totalof 3 minutes of sonication (12 pulse periods) the resulting lecithinstock was finally adjusted to the desired concentration if necessarywith deionized water. To prepare an aqueous concentrate formulation, thefollowing ingredients were mixed in the appropriate proportions withmild agitation, normally in the order given although this was sometimesvaried and was found in some cases to affect the physical stability ofthe concentrate formulation: (a) exogenous chemical, for exampleglyphosate IPA salt as a 62% w/w solution at pH 4.4-4.6; (b) lecithinstock; (c) other ingredients if required; and (d) water.

(vi) Water-in-oil-in-water (W/O/W) multiple emulsions were prepared asfollows. First a water-in-oil emulsion was prepared. To do this, therequired amounts of the selected oil and a first emulsifier (referred toin the Examples as “emulsifier #1”) were mixed thoroughly. If it wasdesired to prepare the formulation with glyphosate in the inner aqueousphase, a measured amount of concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution ofglyphosate IPA salt was added to the mixture of oil and first emulsifierwith agitation to ensure homogeneity. The amount of water required inthe inner aqueous phase was then added to complete the water-in-oilemulsion, which was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typicallyusing a Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a fine emulsor screenoperated for 3 minutes at 10,000 rpm. The required amount of a secondemulsifier (referred to in the Examples as “emulsifier #2”) was nextadded to the water-in-oil emulsion with agitation to ensure homogeneity.If it was desired to prepare the formulation with glyphosate in theouter aqueous phase, a measured amount of concentrated (62% w/w) aqueoussolution of glyphosate IPA salt was added to the blend of thewater-in-oil emulsion and the second emulsifier with further agitation.To complete the water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion composition, theamount of water required in the outer aqueous phase was added. Thecomposition was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typically usinga Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen, operatedfor 3 minutes at 7,000 rpm.

(vii) Oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions were prepared as follows. Therequired amount of the selected oil and surfactant (sometimes referredto in the Examples as “emulsifier #2” as it corresponds to the secondemulsifier in process (vi)) were mixed thoroughly. If the surfactantselected was not free-flowing at ambient temperature, heat was appliedto bring the surfactant into a flowable condition before mixing with theoil. A measured amount of concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution ofglyphosate IPA salt was added to the surfactant-oil mixture withagitation. The required amount of water was added to bring theconcentration of glyphosate and other ingredients to the desired level.The composition was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typicallyusing a Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen,operated for 3 minutes at 7,000 rpm.

(viii) Surfactant-containing aqueous solution concentrates having no oilcomponent were prepared as follows. A concentrated (62% w/w) aqueoussolution of glyphosate IPA salt was added in the desired amount to aweighed quantity of the selected surfactant(s). If the surfactantselected is not free-flowing at ambient temperature, heat was applied tobring the surfactant into a flowable condition before adding theglyphosate solution. The required amount of water was added to bring theconcentration of glyphosate and other ingredients to the desired level.The composition was finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typicallyusing a Silverson L4RT-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen,operated for 3 minutes at 7,000 rpm.

(ix) For compositions containing a colloidal particulate, the requiredamount by weight of the selected colloidal particulate was suspended ina concentrated (62% w/w) aqueous solution of glyphosate IPA salt andagitated with cooling to ensure homogeneity. To the resulting suspensionwas added the required amount by weight of the selected surfactant(s).For a surfactant which is not free-flowing at ambient temperature, heatwas applied to bring the surfactant into a flowable condition beforeadding it to the suspension. In those instances where an oil, such asbutyl stearate, was also to be included in the composition, the oil wasfirst thoroughly mixed with the surfactant and the surfactant-oilmixture added to the suspension. To complete the aqueous concentrate,the required amount of water was added to bring the concentration ofglyphosate and other ingredients to the desired level. The concentratewas finally subjected to high-shear mixing, typically using a SilversonL4RT-A mixer fitted with a medium emulsor screen, operated for 3 minutesat 7,000 rpm.

(x) The procedure for preparing aqueous concentrate formulationscontaining lecithin and butyl stearate was different from that followedfor other lecithin-containing concentrates. Exogenous chemical, forexample glyphosate IPA salt, was first added, with mild agitation, todeionized water in a formulation jar. The selected surfactant (otherthan lecithin) was then added, while continuing the agitation, to form apreliminary exogenous chemical/surfactant mixture. Where the surfactantis not free-flowing at ambient temperature, the order of addition wasnot as above. Instead, the non-free-flowing surfactant was first addedto water together with any other surfactant (other than lecithin)required in the composition, and was then heated to 55° C. in a shakerbath for 2 hours. The resulting mixture was allowed to cool, thenexogenous chemical was added with mild agitation to form the preliminaryexogenous chemical/surfactant mixture. A weighed amount of the selectedlecithin was added to the preliminary exogenous chemical/surfactantmixture, with stirring to break up lumps. The mixture was left for about1 hour to allow the lecithin to hydrate, then butyl stearate was added,with further stirring until no phase separation occurred. The mixturewas then transferred to a microfluidizer (Microfluidics InternationalCorporation, Model M-110F) and microfluidized for 3 to 5 cycles at10,000 psi (69 MPa). In each cycle, the formulation jar was rinsed withmicrofluidized mixture. In the last cycle, the finished composition wascollected in a clean dry beaker.

The following procedure was used for testing compositions of theExamples to determine herbicidal effectiveness, except where otherwiseindicated.

Seeds of the plant species indicated were planted in 85 mm square potsin a soil mix which was previously steam sterilized and prefertilizedwith a 14-14-14 NPK slow release fertilizer at a rate of 3.6 kg/m3. Thepots were placed in a greenhouse with subirrigation. About one weekafter emergence, seedlings were thinned as needed, including removal ofany unhealthy or abnormal plants. to create a uniform series of testpots.

The plants were maintained for the duration of the test in thegreenhouse where they received a minimum of 14 hours of light per day.If natural light was insufficient to achieve the daily requirement,artificial light with an intensity of approximately 475 microeinsteinswas used to make up the difference. Exposure temperatures were notprecisely controlled but averaged about 27° C. during the day and about18° C. during the night. Plants were sub-irrigated throughout the testto ensure adequate soil moisture levels.

Pots were assigned to different treatments in a fully randomizedexperimental design with 3 replications. A set of pots was leftuntreated as a reference against which effects of the treatments couldlater be evaluated.

Application of glyphosate compositions was made by spraying with a tracksprayer fitted with a 9501E nozzle calibrated to deliver a spray volumeof 93 liters per hectare (l/ha) at a pressure of 166 kilopascals (kPa).After treatment, pots were returned to the greenhouse until ready forevaluation.

Treatments were made using dilute aqueous compositions. These could beprepared as spray compositions directly from their ingredients, or bydilution with water of preformulated concentrate compositions.

For evaluation of herbicidal effectiveness, all plants in the test wereexamined by a single practiced technician, who recorded percentinhibition, a visual measurement of the effectiveness of each treatmentby comparison with untreated plants. Inhibition of 0% indicates noeffect, and inhibition of 100% indicates that all of the plants arecompletely dead. Inhibition of 85% or more is in most cases consideredacceptable for normal herbicidal use; however in greenhouse tests suchas those of the Examples it is normal to apply compositions at rateswhich give less than 85% inhibition, as this makes it easier todiscriminate among compositions having different levels ofeffectiveness.

Example 1

Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixingFormulations B and C with excipients as shown in Table 1.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown inTable 1.

TABLE 1 Glyphosate Glyphosate rate Additive rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha Additive % v/v ABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 175 none40 75 350 69 89 500 97 100  Formulation B 175 none 45 37 350 73 66 50083 97 Formulation B 175 L-77 0.25 64 30 175 0.50 77 27 Formulation B 175FC-135 0.25 55 72 175 0.50 73 61 Formulation B 175 FC-135 + L-77 8:10.50 71 58 175 FC-135 + L-77 4:1 0.50 76 61 175 FC-135 + L-77 2:1 0.5063 56 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:1 0.50 77 40 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:2 0.50 54 23175 FC-135 + L-77 1:4 0.50 76 31 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:8 0.50 53 29Formulation B 175 FC-135 + L-77 8:1 0.25 51 48 175 FC-135 + L-77 4:10.25 37 47 175 FC-135 + L-77 2:1 0.25 45 37 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:1 0.2565 27 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:2 0.25 45 29 175 FC-135 + L-77 1:4 0.25 60 17175 FC-135 + L-77 1:8 0.25 52 15

Tank mixtures of Fluorad FC-135 with Formulation B gave markedlysuperior herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH by comparison withFormulation C, but did not match the herbicidal effectiveness ofFormulation C on ECHCF. The antagonism of glyphosate activity on ECHCFseen with the nonionic organosilicone surfactant Silwet L-77 did notoccur with the cationic fluoro-organic surfactant Fluorad FC-135.

Example 2

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate sodium orIPA salts and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 2a. Process (ii)was followed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (10-20%phospholipid, Sigma Type II-S). Without adjustment, the pH of thecompositions was approximately 5. For those compositions having a pH ofapproximately 7 as shown in Table 2a, the pH was adjusted using the samebase (sodium hydroxide or IPA) that formed the glyphosate salt.

TABLE 2a % w/w Components Glypho- Spray Lecithin Fluorad sonicated satecomposition g/l FC-135 L-77 with lecithin salt pH 2-01 5.0 none IPA 52-02 5.0 0.50 none IPA 5 2-03 5.0 none Na 7 2-04 5.0 0.50 none Na 7 2-055.0 none IPA 7 2-06 5.0 0.50 none IPA 7 2-07 5.0 none Na 5 2-08 5.0 0.50none Na 5 2-09 2.5 none IPA 5 2-10 2.5 0.50 none IPA 5 2-11 5.0 0.50none IPA 5 2-12 5.0 0.33 0.17 none IPA 5 2-13 5.0 0.50 L-77 IPA 5 2-145.0 0.50 L-77 Na 7 2-15 5.0 0.50 L-77 IPA 7 2-16 5.0 0.50 L-77 Na 5

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

Formulation C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, were appliedas comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 2b.

TABLE 2b Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation C 100 8 54 200 54 75 300 77 90 Formulation C + 100 6210 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 91 25 300 95 27 2-01 100 59 64 200 74 83 30082 99 2-02 100 66 44 200 73 45 300 92 76 2-03 100 17 29 200 37 72 300 7089 2-04 100 48 24 200 67 50 300 81 61 2-05 100 40 44 200 77 89 300 79 952-06 100 76 43 200 87 74 300 90 85 2-07 100 40 50 200 66 54 300 84 832-08 100 69 34 200 57 70 300 78 66 2-09 100 44 62 200 83 82 300 90 912-10 100 84 83 200 97 85 300 95 93 2-11 100 79 65 200 89 84 300 98 982-12 100 74 63 200 93 84 300 94 92 2-13 100 86 85 200 91 92 300 97 972-14 100 56 17 200 69 48 300 87 81 2-15 100 61 39 200 87 73 300 83 782-16 100 42 32 200 35 78 300 59 85

Surprisingly strong herbicidal effectiveness was observed withcompositions 2-10 and 2-11 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 onboth ABUTH and ECHCF, by comparison with otherwise similar compositions(2-09 and 2-01) lacking the Fluorad FC-135. Herbicidal effectiveness ofcomposition 2-11 at the 100 g a.e./ha glyphosate rate was superior tothat of Formulation C at a threefold higher rate on ABUTH and superiorto that of Formulation C at a twofold higher rate on ECHCF.

Example 3

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 3a. Process (ii), indicatedin Table 3a as involving “high” sonication power, was followed for allcompositions, except that for composition 3-06 a different sonicationprocedure, referred to as “low” sonication power, was used. In thisprocedure the lecithin in water was sonicated in a Fisher Model FS 14Hultrasonic bath for 30 minutes. Soybean lecithin (10-20% phospholipid,Sigma Type II-S) was used for all compositions. Without adjustment, thepH of the compositions was approximately 5. For those compositionshaving a pH of approximately 7 as shown in Table 3a, the pH was adjustedusing the same base (sodium hydroxide or IPA) that formed the glyphosatesalt.

TABLE 3a Spray % w/w Soni- compo- Lecithin Fluorad Components soni-cation sition g/l FC-135 L-77 cated with lecithin pH power 3-01 5.0 none5 high 3-02 5.0 0.50 none 5 high 3-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 5 high 3-04 5.0 0.50glyphosate 5 high 3-05 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 5 high 3-06 5.0 none 7low 3-07 5.0 none 7 high 3-08 5.0 0.50 none 7 high 3-09 5.0 0.50 L-77 7high 3-10 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 7 high 3-11 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 7high 3-12 5.0 0.50 none 5 high 3-13 5.0 0.50 FC-135 5 high 3-14 5.0 0.50glyphosate 5 high 3-15 5.0 0.17 0.33 FC-135, glyphosate 5 high 3-16 5.00.17 0.33 none 5 high 3-17 5.0 0.17 0.33 FC-135, L-77 5 high 3-18 10.0none 5 high 3-19 20.0 none 5 high 3-20 10.0 0.50 none 5 high 3-21 10.00.50 L-77 5 high 3-22 20.0 0.50 L-77 5 high 3-23 20.0 0.50 L-77,glyphosate 5 high

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 3b.

TABLE 3b Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 100 11 12 200 55 43 300 65 38 Formulation B + 100 775 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 95 10 300 95 17 Formulation C 100 33 42 20063 98 300 85 99 Formulation C + 100 78 7 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 95 19300 98 54 3-01 100 63 22 200 77 69 300 92 82 3-02 100 79 30 200 96 67300 98 70 3-03 100 81 29 200 96 70 300 97 86 3-04 100 85 32 200 94 60300 98 61 3-05 100 82 34 200 98 60 300 96 69 3-06 100 55 40 200 91 69300 97 90 3-07 100 77 29 200 93 82 300 97 100 3-08 100 83 48 200 95 67300 94 74 3-09 100 83 37 200 95 75 300 99 83 3-10 100 77 36 200 99 75300 98 69 3-11 100 81 38 200 94 81 300 97 76 3-12 100 56 47 200 91 90300 97 95 3-13 100 81 41 200 94 58 300 97 84 3-14 100 77 37 200 94 70300 96 94 3-15 100 76 61 200 95 79 300 96 85 3-16 100 95 84 200 94 56300 75 32 3-17 100 78 44 200 93 86 300 94 87 3-18 100 59 27 200 94 84300 96 100 3-19 100 74 44 200 94 74 300 95 95 3-20 100 79 62 200 89 78300 92 93 3-21 100 66 69 200 80 79 300 86 88 3-22 100 44 69 200 83 97300 74 94 3-23 100 50 71 200 68 91 300 85 76

Composition 3-12 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 again showedsurprisingly high herbicidal effectiveness by comparison withcomposition 3-01, lacking the Fluorad FC-135, and also by comparisonwith Formulation C. When efforts were made to encapsulate Fluorad FC-135or glyphosate (compositions 3-13 or 3-14 respectively) in lecithinliposomes by sonication in the presence of the ingredients sought to beencapsulated, some further enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness wasevident on ABUTH. but effectiveness was reduced on ECHCF. Overall, thebest activity in this test was obtained without encapsulation.

Example 4

Compositions 3-01 to 3-12 of Example 3 were tested in this Example.Black nightshade (Solanum nigrum, SOLNI) plants were grown and treatedby the standard procedures given above. Applications of spraycompositions were made 26 days after planting SOLNI and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 4.

TABLE 4 Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SOLNIFormulation B 100 28 200 35 300 70 Formulation B + 100 85 Silwet L-770.5% v/v 200 98 300 97 Formulation C 100 30 200 58 300 70 FormulationC + 100 78 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 200 82 300 94 3-01 100 47 200 77 300 933-02 100 33 200 50 300 78 3-03 100 36 200 79 300 90 3-04 100 33 200 72300 84 3-05 100 38 200 68 300 82 3-06 100 84 200 92 300 96 3-07 100 58200 75 300 85 3-08 100 50 200 83 300 91 3-09 100 50 200 72 300 83 3-10100 53 200 75 300 78 3-11 100 75 200 96 300 100 3-12 100 62 200 93 30099

Composition 3-12 containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135, as in the testof Example 3, showed remarkably strong herbicidal effectiveness, thistime on SOLNI.

Example 5

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 5a. Process (ii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 5a % w/w Spray Lecthin Fluorad Silwet Components composition g/lFC-135 L-77 KCl sonicated with lecithin 5-01 5.0 glyphosate 5-02 5.00.50 L-77 5-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 5-04 5.0 1.00 L-77 5-05 5.0 0.20 none 5-065.0 1.00 none 5-07 5.0 0.20 L-77, glyphosate 5-08 5.0 0.50 L-77,glyphosate 5-09 5.0 1.00 L-77, glyphosate 5-10 2.5 0.10 L-77 5-11 2.50.25 L-77 5-12 2.5 0.50 L-77 5-13 2.5 0.10 none 5-14 2.5 0.25 none 5-152.5 0.10 L-77, glyphosate 5-16 2.5 0.25 L-77, glyphosate 5-17 2.5 0.50L-77, glyphosate 5-18 5.0 0.50 0.02 L-77 5-19 5.0 0.50 0.02 L-77,glyphosate 5-20 5.0 0.50 none 5-21 5.0 0.50 glyphosate 5-22 5.0 0.330.17 none 5-23 5.0 033 0.17 glyphosate

Velvetleaf Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by the standardprocedures given above. Applications of spray compositions were made 18days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 5b.

TABLE 5b Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 200 47 83 300 64 84 400 71 90 Formulation B + 200 8358 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 94 76 400 100 85 Formulation C 200 46 96 30068 90 400 75 93 Formulation C + 200 81 66 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 93 68400 96 86 5-01 200 70 91 300 74 100 400 93 94 5-02 200 81 95 300 68 100400 81 100 5-03 200 78 100 300 99 83 400 98 99 5-04 200 89 95 300 93 95400 86 100 5-05 200 60 89 300 79 100 400 86 100 5-06 200 76 100 300 84100 400 100 96 5-07 200 65 97 300 78 97 400 77 100 5-08 200 82 100 30095 100 400 96 100 5-09 200 78 99 300 89 99 400 90 100 5-10 200 66 100300 79 98 400 89 100 5-11 200 67 95 300 81 100 400 97 100 5-12 200 76 88300 79 100 400 95 96 5-13 200 59 85 300 66 93 400 67 100 5-14 200 56 89300 67 100 400 83 100 5-15 200 54 100 300 63 100 400 78 100 5-16 200 4688 300 73 100 400 86 100 5-17 200 81 98 300 83 97 400 92 96 5-18 200 5692 300 64 100 400 74 100 5-19 200 64 94 300 80 97 400 80 96 5-20 200 8891 300 96 100 400 98 98 5-21 200 92 94 300 100 100 400 100 100 5-22 20088 97 300 93 95 400 95 100 5-23 200 79 100 300 96 100 400 97 96

Glyphosate activity on ECHCF in this test was too high to makemeaningful comparisons. However, on ABUTH, composition 5-20 containinglecithin and Fluorad FC-135 exhibited remarkably strong herbicidaleffectiveness by comparison with composition 5-01 (no Fluorad FC-135)and Formulation C. As in previous testing, a slight further advantage onABUTH was obtained by efforts to encapsulate the glyphosate in lecithinliposomes, as in composition 5-21. Compositions 5-22 and 5-23,containing both Fluorad FC-135 and Silwet L-77 in addition to lecithin,also showed remarkably good herbicidal effectiveness.

Example 6

Compositions 5-01 to 5-23 of Example 5 were tested in this Example.Morningglory (Ipomoea spp., IPOSS) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting IPOSS and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6 Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha IPOSSFormulation B 200 40 400 66 Formulation B + 200 68 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v400 79 Formulation C 200 62 400 71 Formulation C + 200 70 Silwet L-770.5% v/v 400 72 5-01 200 64 400 77 5-02 200 68 400 75 5-03 200 68 400 725-04 200 69 400 72 5-05 200 64 400 78 5-06 200 80 400 89 5-07 200 69 40074 5-08 200 60 400 72 5-09 200 79 400 84 5-10 200 69 400 78 5-11 200 52400 72 5-12 200 69 400 88 5-13 200 72 400 74 5-14 200 68 400 69 5-15 20068 400 70 5-16 200 55 400 69 5-17 200 52 400 67 5-18 200 65 400 67 5-19200 54 400 70 5-20 200 74 400 100 5-21 200 72 400 91 5-22 200 81 400 845-23 200 79 400 90

Once again, surprisingly strong herbicidal effectiveness, this time onIPOSS, was exhibited by compositions 5-20 to 5-23, all of which containlecithin and Fluorad FC-135.

Example 7

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 7a. Process (ii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 7a % w/w Spray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Components composition g/lFC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin 7-01 5.0 0.50 L-77 7-02 5.0 0.25L-77 7-03 5.0 0.10 L-77 7-04 5.0 none 7-05 2.5 0.50 L-77 7-06 2.5 0.25L-77 7-07 2.5 0.10 L-77 7-08 1.0 0.50 L-77 7-09 1.0 0.25 L-77 7-10 2.50.10 L-77 7-11 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77 7-12 2.5 0.17 0.33 L-77 7-13 2.5 0.330.17 L-77 7-14 2.5 0.50 none 7-15 2.5 0.25 none 7-16 2.5 0.10 none 7-172.5 0.25 glyphosate 7-18 2.5 0.10 glyphosate 7-19 2.5 0.50 glyphosate7-20 5.0 0.50 L-77, glyphosate 7-21 2.5 0.25 L-77, glyphosate 7-22 1.00.25 L-77, glyphosate 7-23 1.0 0.10 L-77, glyphosate

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF.Planting date for SIDSP was not recorded. Evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 7b.

TABLE 7b Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Formulation B 150 33 39 29 250 44 43 66 350 83 45 60Formulation B + 150 81 7 46 Silwet L-77 0.5% 250 88 21 64 v/v 350 96 3266 Formuiation C 150 61 59 58 250 77 92 85 350 91 92 83 Formulation C +150 76 10 65 Silwet L-77 0.5% 250 87 17 60 v/v 350 92 39 64 7-01 150 8743 47 250 88 41 60 350 96 53 66 7-02 150 66 51 61 250 85 81 63 350 84 8975 7-03 150 66 54 65 250 70 63 60 350 94 96 87 7-04 150 73 58 61 250 8583 90 350 91 100 83 7-05 150 76 44 49 250 85 55 56 350 93 79 64 7-06 15064 73 56 250 71 78 61 350 81 79 77 7-07 150 53 41 59 250 74 78 68 350 7890 75 7-08 150 83 33 59 250 82 39 75 350 95 59 69 7-09 150 78 32 46 25085 42 75 350 91 62 67 7-10 150 26 36 43 250 69 73 75 350 76 81 73 7-11150 83 79 72 250 96 93 78 350 99 97 84 7-12 150 78 57 58 250 89 78 66350 94 93 75 7-13 150 83 84 54 250 94 93 67 350 99 97 93 7-14 150 80 6869 250 85 88 79 350 97 94 99 7-15 150 75 80 62 250 93 93 76 350 95 91 947-16 150 75 69 60 250 88 91 77 350 89 92 75 7-17 150 77 69 67 250 88 9186 350 93 97 96 7-18 150 71 63 66 250 74 85 82 350 89 85 83 7-19 150 7462 77 250 86 80 93 350 92 96 96 7-20 150 39 46 38 250 80 49 69 350 91 6469 7-21 150 65 50 34 250 64 52 52 350 78 67 62 7-22 150 68 18 35 250 7942 43 350 87 49 58 7-23 150 24 46 38 250 62 49 42 350 91 53 67

Compositions 7-14 to 7-16, containing 0.25% lecithin together withFluorad FC-135, provided excellent herbicidal effectiveness on all threespecies tested. Even at the lowest concentration of Fluorad FC-135 (0.1%in composition 7-16), effectiveness was substantially maintained onABUTH and ECHCF, although some loss of effectiveness was evident onSIDSP. Compositions 7-11 to 7-13, containing lecithin, Fluorad FC-135and Silwet L-77, also performed well in this test, not showing theantagonism on ECHCF characteristic of compositions containing SilwetL-77 but no Fluorad FC-135.

Example 8

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 8a. Process (ii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti).

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 8a. The pH of allcompositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 8a % w/w Spray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Components composition g/lFC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin 8-01 5.0 0.50 L-77 8-02 5.0 0.25L-77 8-03 5.0 0.10 L-77 8-04 5.0 none 8-05 2.5 0.50 L-77 8-06 2.5 0.25L-77 8-07 2.5 0.10 L-77 8-08 1.0 0.50 L-77 8-09 1.0 0.25 L-77 8-10 2.50.10 L-77 8-11 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77 8-12 2.5 0.17 0.33 L-77 8-13 2.5 0.330.17 L-77 8-14 2.5 0.50 none 8-15 2.5 0.25 none 8-16 2.5 0.10 none 8-172.5 0.25 glyphosate 8-18 2.5 0.10 glyphosate 8-19 2.5 0.50 glyphosate

Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown andtreated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spraycompositions were made 21 days after planting CYPES, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 27 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 8b.

TABLE 8b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha CYPESFormulation B 500 92 1000 95 5000 100 Formulation B + Silwet L-77 500100 0.5% v/v 1000 87 5000 100 Formulation C 500 87 1000 96 5000 100Formulation C + Silwet L-77 500 98 0.5% v/v 1000 94 5000 100 8-01 500 911000 100 1500 97 8-02 500 83 1000 100 1500 100 8-03 500 90 1000 88 150071 8-04 500 88 1000 100 1500 100 8-05 500 84 1000 99 1500 95 8-06 500 901000 88 1500 99 8-07 500 78 1000 94 1500 97 8-08 500 93 1000 96 1500 1008-09 500 87 1000 88 1500 100 8-10 500 86 1000 100 1500 100 8-11 500 951000 94 1500 100 8-12 500 92 1000 92 1500 100 8-13 500 87 1000 97 1500100 8-14 500 82 1000 100 1500 100 8-15 500 85 1000 90 1500 95 8-16 50087 1000 91 1500 100 8-17 500 83 1000 90 1500 95 8-18 500 93 1000 1001500 95 8-19 500 86 1000 95 1500 100

The commercial standard Formulation C exhibited very high herbicidaleffectiveness in this test and for this reason it is not possible todiscern enhancements. There is a suggestion at the lowest glyphosaterate (500 g a.e./ha), effectiveness of compositions containing lecithinand Fluorad FC-135 (8-14 to 8-16) on CYPES surprisingly improved withdecreasing Fluorad FC-135 concentration.

Example 9

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 9a. Process (ii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 9a % w/w Spray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Components composition g/lFC-135 L-77 sonicated with lecithin 9-01 5.0 none 9-02 5.0 0.50 none9-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 9-04 2.5 none 9-05 2.5 0.50 none 9-06 2.5 0.50 L-779-07 1.0 none 9-08 1.0 0.50 none 9-09 1.0 0.50 L-77 9-10 0.5 none 9-110.5 0.50 none 9-12 0.5 0.50 L-77 9-13 1.0 0.25 none 9-14 1.0 0.25 L-779-15 1.0 0.10 none 9-16 1.0 0.10 L-77 9-17 1.0 0.50 none 9-18 1.0 0.20none 9-19 1.0 0.10 none 9-20 0.5 0.50 none 9-21 0.5 0.20 none

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. There was no record of the dates ofplanting. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days afterapplication.

In addition to compositions 9-01 to 9-21, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with 0.5% Fluorad FC-135.Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 9b.

TABLE 9b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 64 77 250 81 80 350 88 97 Formulation B + L-770.5% 150 42 38 v/v 250 56 49 350 67 64 Formulation C 150 61 89 250 75 91350 92 99 Formulation C + Silwet 150 92 40 L-77 0.5% v/v 250 95 40 35094 74 Formulation B + Fluorad 150 87 34 FC-135 0.5% w/v 250 90 44 350 9747 Formulation C + Fluorad 150 79 85 FC-135 0.5% w/v 250 77 86 350 92 919-01 150 75 69 250 84 89 350 98 98 9-02 150 86 54 250 96 74 350 99 869-03 150 86 66 250 91 77 350 96 86 9-04 150 68 73 250 97 85 350 94 929-05 150 90 55 250 96 69 350 91 82 9-06 150 87 43 250 91 68 350 97 839-07 150 56 76 250 81 88 350 89 96 9-08 150 85 35 250 93 51 350 98 669-09 150 94 45 250 97 47 350 98 52 9-10 150 62 60 250 85 78 350 93 889-11 150 90 32 250 92 42 350 98 59 9-12 150 93 38 250 93 56 350 95 729-13 150 85 39 250 89 66 350 94 79 9-14 150 83 70 250 93 45 350 93 709-15 150 65 54 250 85 79 350 91 89 9-16 150 75 65 250 83 79 350 90 849-17 150 81 94 250 88 97 350 100 99 9-18 150 79 89 250 95 91 350 98 989-19 150 77 85 250 91 96 350 95 97 9-20 150 77 71 250 86 92 350 100 939-21 150 75 91 250 84 97 350 96 95

Compositions of this Example (9-17 to 9-21) containing very lowconcentrations of lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 exhibited remarkably highherbicidal effectiveness. Even a composition (9-19) with just 0.1%lecithin and 0.1% Fluorad FC-135 was much more effective on ABUTH thancommercial standard Formulation C, and equally as effective on ECHCF asFormulation C. The apparently strong antagonism on ECHCF seen whenFormulation B was tank mixed with 0.5% Fluorad FC-135 in this test isuncharacteristic and has not been seen in other tests (see, for example,Example 12 herein); indeed the data for this set of treatments is so outof line that it is believed they may be due to an error in application.

Example 10

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 10a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 10a Spray % w/w Components compo- Lecithin Fluorad Silwet MethylSodium sonicated with sition g/l FC-135 L-77 caprate cholate lecithin10-01 5.0 none 10-02 5.0 0.50 none 10-03 5.0 0.50 L-77 10-04 2.5 none10-05 0.5 none 10-06 2.5 0.50 none 10-07 2.5 0.50 L-77 10-08 0.5 0.50none 10-09 0.5 0.50 L-77 10-10 2.5 0.25 none 10-11 2.5 0.10 none 10-122.5 0.05 none 10-13 0.5 0.25 none 10-14 0.5 0.10 none 10-15 0.5 0.05none 10-16 2.5 0.10 Me caprate 10-17 2.5 0.10 Na cholate

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

In addition to compositions 10-01 to 10-17. spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 101b.

TABLE 10b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 200 53 69 300 76 85 400 77 81 Formulation B + 200100 28 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 100 35 400 100 47 Formulation C 200 5781 300 73 90 400 98 94 Formulation C + 200 99 28 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v300 98 53 400 99 56 Formulation B + 200 76 85 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v300 95 81 400 100 100 Formulation B + 200 77 70 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v300 94 81 400 98 87 Formulation B + 200 65 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v300 84 94 400 88 96 Formulation C + 200 83 78 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v300 98 94 400 97 95 Formulation C + 200 65 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v300 89 86 400 97 89 Formulation C + 200 70 78 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v300 79 84 400 96 98 10-01 200 93 71 300 91 89 400 97 97 10-02 200 95 59300 97 68 400 99 79 10-03 200 97 55 300 98 62 400 100 76 10-04 200 83 72300 87 84 400 95 100 10-05 200 69 78 300 92 93 400 98 97 10-06 200 94 61300 99 67 400 100 76 10-07 200 99 52 300 99 63 400 100 80 10-08 200 9647 300 99 57 400 99 55 10-09 200 99 23 300 98 58 400 100 53 10-10 200 8991 300 91 99 400 98 100 10-11 200 81 91 300 91 99 400 92 100 10-12 20066 96 300 86 100 400 94 99 10-13 200 80 97 300 98 98 400 99 100 10-14200 68 92 300 89 100 400 99 98 10-15 200 84 95 300 94 100 400 97 10010-16 200 73 94 300 89 100 400 99 100 10-17 200 58 94 300 77 96 400 9090

Tank mixture of Fluorad FC-135 at concentrations as low as 0.05% withFormulation B resulted in remarkably strong herbicidal efficacy in thistest. The antagonism on ECHCF seen with the nonionic organosiliconesurfactant Silwet L-77 did not occur with the cationic fluoro-organicsurfactant Fluorad FC-135. Noteworthy was the outstanding herbicidaleffectiveness provided by a composition (10-15) containing just 0.05%lecithin and 0.05% Fluorad FC-135. In this test addition of 0.1% methylcaprate to 0.25% lecithin, the methyl caprate being sonicated togetherwith the lecithin, enhanced performance on ECHCF but not on ABUTH(compare compositions 10-16 and 10-04).

Example 11

Compositions 10-01 to 10-17 of Example 10, and tank mixtures ofFormulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135, were tested in this Example.Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 22 days after planting SIDSP, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 11.

TABLE 11 Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SIDSPFormulation B 200 46 300 75 400 80 Formulation B + 200 96 Silwet L-770.5% v/v 300 89 400 87 Formulation C 200 80 300 98 400 98 FormulationC + 200 75 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 91 400 94 Formulation B + 200 82Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 94 400 98 Formulation B + 200 70 FluoradFC-135 0.1% w/v 300 93 400 88 Formulation B + 200 79 Fluorad FC-1350.05% w/v 300 92 400 99 Formulation C + 200 79 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v300 97 400 97 Formulation C + 200 90 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 96 40097 Formulation C + 200 80 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 300 96 400 99 10-01200 93 300 97 400 98 10-02 200 71 300 89 400 89 10-03 200 71 300 87 40098 10-04 200 76 300 100 400 100 10-05 200 91 300 99 400 97 10-06 200 57300 95 400 88 10-07 200 64 300 68 400 94 10-08 200 89 300 96 400 9910-09 200 80 300 77 400 94 10-10 200 90 300 94 400 98 10-11 200 81 300100 400 96 10-12 200 86 300 92 400 95 10-13 200 86 300 99 400 100 10-14200 97 300 100 400 100 10-15 200 99 300 100 400 100 10-16 200 92 300 100400 100 10-17 200 92 300 99 400 100

Herbicidal effectiveness of Formulation C was very high on SIDSP in thistest and accordingly enhancements are difficult to discern. However,remarkably strong performance was again seen with composition 10-15,containing just 0.05% lecithin and 0.05% Fluorad FC-135.

Example 12

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 12a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 12a Components % w/w sonicated Spray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Other(*) Other with comp. g/l FC-135 L-77 (*) ingredient lecithin 12-01 5.0none 12-02 5.0 0.50 L-77 12-03 2.5 none 12-04 2.5 0.50 none 12-05 2.50.20 none 12-06 2.5 0.10 none 12-07 5.0 0.50 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-085.0 0.10 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-09 2.5 0.25 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-10 2.50.25 0.05 Diacid 1550 Diacid 12-11 5.0 0.10 0.50 Genapol Genapol UD-03012-12 5.0 0.05 0.20 Genapol Genapol UD-030 12-13 5.0 0.25 0.50 Neodol25-3 Neodol 12-14 5.0 0.10 0.20 Neodol 25-3 Neodol

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and morningglory (Ipomoea spp., IPOSS) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH, 18 daysafter planting ECHCF and 9 days after planting IPOSS. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 12-01 to 12-14, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with0.5% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 12b.

TABLE 12b Glypho- sate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e/haABUTH ECHCF IPOSS Formulation B 200 24 53 33 300 47 37 37 400 64 46 64Formulation B + 200 85 3 66 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 97 19 77 400 98 1882 Formulation C 200 39 69 38 300 71 90 67 400 87 100 76 Formulation C +200 90 8 72 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 95 50 79 400 100 90 73 FormulationB + 200 75 71 65 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 94 92 79 400 98 100 77Formulation B + 200 75 67 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 85 73 71 40096 97 75 Formulation B + 200 61 53 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 82 9872 400 95 86 70 Formulation C + 200 81 61 69 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 30075 75 71 400 84 84 77 Formulation C + 200 35 58 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.25%w/v 300 68 97 64 400 92 96 73 Formulation C + 200 40 84 51 FluoradFC-135 0.1% w/v 300 79 94 58 400 99 86 74 12-01 200 69 69 62 300 82 8273 400 88 84 77 12-02 200 81 75 67 300 83 74 72 400 95 93 75 12-03 20048 69 70 300 82 93 71 400 94 100 72 12-04 200 68 78 64 300 90 94 76 40096 99 79 12-05 200 75 86 68 300 86 95 72 400 96 89 80 12-06 200 80 95 57300 85 82 60 400 96 91 73 12-07 200 41 72 64 300 76 82 68 400 80 98 7712-08 200 40 71 70 300 51 91 76 400 77 98 72 12-09 200 43 74 64 300 5895 76 400 73 100 77 12-10 200 43 85 65 300 74 75 65 400 83 99 76 12-11200 39 71 66 300 61 88 71 400 89 99 73 12-12 200 54 57 59 300 79 77 75400 89 84 71 12-13 200 69 72 69 300 59 66 69 400 86 81 76 12-14 200 5462 65 300 65 77 69 400 84 81 74

Tank mixtures of Formulation B with Fluorad FC-135 gave greaterherbicidal effectiveness than Formulation C alone, without the attendantantagonism on ECHCF so characteristic of Silwet L-77. Addition ofFluorad FC-135 to glyphosate compositions containing 0.25% lecithinenhanced herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH and ECHCF, but not, in thistest, on IPOSS (compare compositions 12-04 to 12-06 with composition12-03).

Example 13

Compositions 12-01 to 12-14 of Example 12, and tank mixtures ofFormulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135, were tested in this Example.Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Application of spray composition weremade 23 days after planting SIDSP, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulation B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% Silwet L-77, wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 13.

TABLE 13 Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SIDSPFormulation B 200 37 300 47 400 50 Formulation B + 200 93 Silwet L-770.5% v/v 300 100 400 99 Formulation C 200 47 300 63 400 86 FormulationC + 200 88 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 92 400 99 Formulation B + 200 51Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v 300 79 400 84 Formulation B + 200 49 FluoradFC-135 0.25% w/v 300 53 400 85 Formulation B + 200 44 Fluorad FC-1350.1% w/v 300 58 400 70 Formulation C + 200 74 Fluorad FC-135 0.5% w/v300 89 400 97 Formulation C + 200 52 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 70 40075 Formulation C + 200 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 74 400 87 12-01200 62 300 76 400 89 12-02 200 59 300 54 400 73 12-03 200 56 300 89 40080 12-04 200 72 300 89 400 96 12-05 200 66 300 87 400 84 12-06 200 60300 74 400 86 12-07 200 57 300 78 400 89 12-08 200 59 300 67 400 7012-09 200 57 300 65 400 74 12-10 200 53 300 77 400 77 12-11 200 58 30071 400 87 12-12 200 54 300 70 400 82 12-13 200 65 300 75 400 82 12-14200 61 300 77 400 81

On SIDSP in this test, tank mix addition of Fluorad FC-135 toFormulation B enhanced herbicidal effectiveness over that obtained withFormulation C alone, only at the 0.5% concentration of Fluorad FC-135.Likewise, when added to a glyphosate composition containing 0.25%lecithin, Fluorad FC-135 enhanced herbicidal effectiveness mostsignificantly at the 0.5% concentration (composition 12-04).

Example 14

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 14a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The following compositions had a pH of approximately 5: 14-01,14-03, 14-07, 14-08, 14-10 and 14-12 to 14-17. All others were adjustedto a pH of approximately 7.

TABLE 14A % w/w Components Spray Lecithin Fluorad Silwet Diacidsonicated with composition g/l FC-135 L-77 1550 lecithin 14-01 5.0 none14-02 5.0 none 14-03 2.5 none 14-04 2.5 none 14-05 5.0 glyphosate 14-065.0 0.50 L-77 14-07 5.0 0.50 L-77 14-08 2.5 0.50 L-77 14-09 2.5 0.50L-77 14-10 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 14-11 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 14-12 2.5 0.25none 14-13 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 14-14 2.5 0.10 none 14-15 2.5 0.10glyphosate 14-16 2.5 0.25 0.25 L-77, Diacid 14-17 2.5 0.10 0.05 L-77,Diacid

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

In addition to compositions 14-01 to 14-17, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at twoconcentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% and0.25% Silwet L-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 14b.

TABLE 14b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 200 53 43 300 73 50 400 91 74 Formulation B + 200 8624 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 88 15 400 94 58 Formulation B + 200 80 22Silwet L-77 0.25% w/v 300 93 38 400 87 38 Formulation C 200 56 88 300 8698 400 94 98 Formulation C + 200 87 23 Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 93 52400 91 60 Formulation C + 200 79 42 Silwet L-77 0.25% v/v 300 83 73 40087 95 Formulation B + 200 79 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 89 77 40094 85 Formulation B + 200 73 64 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 68 400 9275 Formulation C + 200 73 86 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 75 90 400 9095 Formulation C + 200 53 97 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 89 96 400 91 9914-01 200 71 66 300 89 62 400 97 85 14-02 200 83 52 300 89 72 400 82 9314-03 200 54 53 300 89 84 400 93 77 14-04 200 81 38 300 94 76 400 98 8814-05 200 85 53 300 95 80 400 94 91 14-06 200 80 0 300 95 100 400 98 9414-07 200 72 50 300 95 84 400 98 92 14-08 200 81 69 300 99 83 400 100 8014-09 200 86 38 300 94 80 400 96 90 14-10 200 58 67 300 82 85 400 92 9014-11 200 83 64 300 88 74 400 90 88 14-12 200 89 90 300 100 88 400 10098 14-13 200 95 91 300 93 97 400 100 98 14-14 200 88 93 300 93 85 400 9890 14-15 200 85 87 300 98 98 400 96 100 14-16 200 76 72 300 83 87 400 8997 14-17 200 53 67 300 48 62 400 82 85

Compositions 14-12 to 14-15, containing 0.25% lecithin together withFluorad FC-135, exhibited much greater herbicidal effectiveness on bothABUTH and ECHCF than composition 14-03, containing 0.25% lecithin but noFluorad FC-135, or even composition 14-01, containing 0.5% lecithin butno Fluorad FC-135. No great or consistent difference was seen betweencompositions where glyphosate had been sonicated together with thelecithin (14-13 and 14-15) than where the lecithin had been sonicatedalone (14-12 and 14-14).

Example 15

Compositions 14-01 to 14-17 of Example 14, and tank mixtures ofFormulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135, were tested in this Example.Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 22 days after planting SIDSP, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5% and 0.25% SilwetL-77, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 15.

TABLE 15 Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SIDSPFormulation B 200 23 300 37 400 32 Formulation B + 200 30 Silwet L-770.5% v/v 300 39 400 45 Formulation B + 200 28 Silwet L-77 0.25% w/v 30049 400 28 Formulation C 200 41 300 54 400 84 Formulation C + 200 43Silwet L-77 0.5% v/v 300 66 400 86 Formulation C + 200 17 Silwet L-770.25% v/v 300 35 400 58 Formulation B + 200 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v300 60 400 62 Formulation B + 200 31 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 47 40075 Formulation C + 200 43 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 300 57 400 71Formulation C + 200 32 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 300 71 400 63 14-01 20051 300 55 400 76 14-02 200 51 300 68 400 84 14-03 200 55 300 51 400 7214-04 200 50 300 64 400 75 14-05 200 46 300 53 400 61 14-06 200 40 30044 400 73 14-07 200 23 300 32 400 39 14-08 200 18 300 44 400 57 14-09200 25 300 30 400 43 14-10 200 19 300 36 400 38 14-11 200 35 300 48 40057 14-12 200 65 300 80 400 88 14-13 200 68 300 75 400 87 14-14 200 76300 76 400 72 14-15 200 54 300 73 400 84 14-16 200 44 300 51 400 6314-17 200 23 300 45 400 57

Compositions 14-12 to 14-15, containing 0.25% lecithin together withFluorad FC-135, exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness on SIDSP thancomposition 14-03, containing 0.25% lecithin but no Fluorad FC-135, oreven composition 14-01, containing 0.5% lecithin but no Fluorad FC-135.No great or consistent difference was seen between compositions whereglyphosate had been sonicated together with the lecithin (14-13 and14-15) than where the lecithin had been sonicated alone (14-12 and14-14).

Example 16

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 16a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 16a % w/w Components Spray Lecithin Fluorad (*) Other sonicatedcomp. g/l FC-135 Other (*) ingredient with lecithin 16-01 2.5 none 16-022.5 glyphosate 16-03 2.5 0.25 none 16-04 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 16-05 2.50.25 Silwet 800 none 16-06 2.5 0.25 Silwet 800 Silwet 800 16-07 2.5 0.25Silwet 800 Silwet, glyphosate 16-08 0.5 none 16-09 0.5 glyphosate 16-100.5 0.05 none 16-11 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 16-12 0.5 0.03 0.02 Silwet L-77Silwet L-77 16-13 0.5 0.05 methyl caprate Me caprate 16-14 0.5 0.05 0.05methyl caprate Me caprate 16-15 0.5 0.05 0.05 methyl caprate Me caprate,glyphosate 16-16 0.5 0.01 PVA none 16-17 0.5 0.01 PVA glyphosate 16-180.5 0.05 0.01 PVA glyphosate 16-19 0.5 0.05 + 0.01 L-77 + PVA SilwetL-77

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

In addition to compositions 16-01 to 16-19, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at twoconcentrations. Formulations B and C, alone and tank mixed with 0.5%Silwet 800, were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averagedfor all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 16b.

TABLE 16b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 13 28 250 37 51 350 56 38 Formulation B + 150 8115 Silwet 800 0.25% v/v 250 89 17 350 91 20 Formulation C 150 32 65 25059 91 350 85 89 Formulation C + 150 91 17 Silwet 800 0.25% v/v 250 91 23350 95 48 Formulation B + 150 31 58 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 53 68350 71 84 Formulation B + 150 31 29 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 44 69350 95 79 Formulation C + 150 46 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 69 79350 86 77 Formulation C + 150 44 57 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 60 87350 86 88 16-01 150 55 50 250 87 81 350 89 88 16-02 150 56 54 250 89 69350 87 98 16-03 150 89 68 250 89 84 350 91 90 16-04 150 63 68 250 89 86350 99 89 16-05 150 81 51 250 87 84 350 94 26 16-06 150 67 0 250 93 62350 94 81 16-07 150 81 35 250 84 51 350 95 62 16-08 150 59 51 250 84 69350 98 90 16-09 150 64 59 250 85 61 350 94 96 16-10 150 73 74 250 87 83350 98 96 16-11 150 76 64 250 88 79 350 94 81 16-12 150 59 46 250 82 88350 92 82 16-13 150 61 45 250 90 69 350 93 90 16-14 150 76 50 250 95 73350 99 91 16-15 150 78 67 250 95 80 350 99 85 16-16 150 48 42 250 77 87350 87 75 16-17 150 47 63 250 85 67 350 90 78 16-18 150 55 46 250 82 77350 90 87 16-19 150 32 23 250 43 31 350 76 65

As in Example 10, glyphosate composition (16-10 and 16-11) containingjust 0.05% lecithin and 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 exhibited surprisinglygreat herbicidal efficacy in this test. Sonicating the lecithin in thepresence of glyphosate in an effort to encapsulate some of theglyphosate (composition 16-11) did not give an advantage in performanceover sonicating the lecithin alone (composition 16-10); indeed on ECHCFherbicidal efficacy was slightly better without such efforts toencapsulate the glyphosate. Addition of methyl caprate to compositionscontaining lecithin with or without Fluorad FC-135 (16-13 to 16-15)improved herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH but had little effect onECHCF.

Example 17

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 17a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 17a Components % w/w sonicated Spray Lecithin Fluorad (*) Otherwith composition g/l FC-135 Other (*) ingredient lecithin 17-01 2.5 none17-02 2.5 0.25 none 17-03 2.5 0.25 glyphosate 17-04 2.5 0.25 0.025 PVAnone 17-05 1.0 none 17-06 1.0 glyphosate 17-07 1.0 0.10 none 17-08 1.00.10 glyphosate 17-09 1.0 0.05 none 17-10 1.0 0.05 glyphosate 17-11 1.00.100 PVA none 17-12 1.0 0.025 PVA none 17-13 1.0 0.05 0.025 PVA none17-14 1.0 0.100 sodium Na cholate cholate 17-15 1.0 0.020 sodium Nacholate cholate 17-16 1.0 0.05 0.020 sodium Na cholate cholate 17-17 0.5none 17-18 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 17-19 0.5 0.05 0.020 sodium Na cholatecholate

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

In addition to compositions 17-01 to 17-19, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 17b.

TABLE 17b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 200 32 25 300 50 34 400 54 35 Formulation C 200 5992 300 76 100 400 93 97 Formulation B + 200 43 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.25%w/v 300 64 52 400 84 71 Formulation B + 200 61 78 Fluorad FC-135 0.1%w/v 300 65 59 400 100 86 Formulation B + 200 58 30 Fluorad FC-135 0.05%w/v 300 82 55 400 88 77 Formulation C + 200 53 55 Fluorad FC-135 0.25%w/v 300 76 68 400 88 93 Formulation C + 200 59 70 Fluorad FC-135 0.1%w/v 300 89 85 400 93 83 Formulation C + 200 60 72 Fluorad FC-135 0.05%w/v 300 82 100 400 94 94 17-01 200 73 52 300 88 80 400 94 90 17-02 20083 80 300 96 83 400 97 95 17-03 200 86 73 300 95 79 400 98 94 17-04 20073 72 300 94 86 400 96 93 17-05 200 67 68 300 94 74 400 96 91 17-06 20065 61 300 79 82 400 91 81 17-07 200 75 65 300 92 84 400 98 91 17-08 20066 70 300 87 96 400 97 97 17-09 200 83 73 300 91 83 400 97 89 17-10 20089 70 300 92 79 400 91 74 17-11 200 65 58 300 86 86 400 97 100 17-12 20075 64 300 79 85 400 91 87 17-13 200 79 53 300 81 83 400 96 88 17-14 20056 69 300 80 95 400 92 93 17-15 200 57 77 300 67 91 400 88 90 17-16 20088 82 300 85 87 400 76 72 17-17 200 53 66 300 71 72 400 87 83 17-18 20089 85 300 79 72 400 65 60 17-19 200 77 65 300 87 85 400 92 94

In glyphosate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135, noconsistent difference in herbicidal effectiveness was observed betweenthose where lecithin was sonicated alone (17-02, 17-07, 17-09) and thosewhere glyphosate and lecithin were sonicated together (17-03, 17-08,17-10). The anomalous inversion of the apparent rate response toglyphosate seen with composition 17-18 is believed to be the result ofan error in application or recording and the data for this compositionshould be ignored in this Example.

Example 18

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 18a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 18a % w/w Spray Lecithin Fluorad Components composition g/l FC-135PVA sonicated with lecithin 18-01 2.5 none 18-02 1.0 none 18-03 0.5 none18-04 0.2 none 18-05 1.0 0.25 none 18-06 1.0 0.25 glyphosate 18-07 1.00.10 none 18-08 1.0 0.10 glyphosate 18-09 0.5 0.05 none 18-10 0.5 0.05glyphosate 18-11 2.5 0.10 none

Hemp sesbania (Sesbania exaltata, SEBEX) plants were grown and treatedby the standard procedures given above. Applications of spraycompositions were made 22 days after planting SEBEX, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.

In addition to compositions 18-01 to 18-11, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone, and Formulation Btank mixed with 0.1% PVA (polyvinyl alcohol), were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 18b.

TABLE 18b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha SEBEXFormulation B 500 43 1000 54 1500 44 Formulation B + 500 53 PVA 0.1% w/v1000 45 1500 44 Formulation C 500 56 1000 62 1500 63 Formulation B + 50040 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 1000 45 1500 60 Formulation B + 500 33Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 1000 51 1500 53 Formulation B + 500 21 FluoradFC-135 0.05% w/v 1000 18 1500 29 Formulation C + 500 34 Fluorad FC-1350.25% w/v 1000 41 1500 58 Formulation C + 500 50 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v1000 43 1500 52 Formulation C + 500 48 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 1000 491500 46 18-01 500 22 1000 33 1500 37 18-02 500 16 1000 24 1500 28 18-03500 15 1000 24 1500 27 18-04 500 17 1000 13 1500 31 18-05 500 28 1000 641500 68 18-06 500 64 1000 51 1500 61 18-07 500 65 1000 51 1500 63 18-08500 50 1000 56 1500 30 18-09 500 40 1000 59 1500 66 18-10 500 31 1000 231500 49 18-11 500 43 1000 39 1500 74

Glyphosate activity on SEBEX was extremely weak in this test and no firmconclusions can be drawn.

Example 19

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 19a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 19a Spray Lecithin % w/w Components composition g/l Fluorad FC-135sonicated with lecithin 19-01 2.5 none 19-02 1.0 none 19-03 0.5 none19-04 0.2 none 19-05 1.0 0.25 none 19-06 1.0 0.25 glyphosate

Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia, CASOB) plants were grown and treated bythe standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositionswere made 22 days after planting CASOB, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 21 days after application.

In addition to composition 19-01 to 19-06, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at twoconcentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparativetreatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, areshown in Table 19b.

TABLE 19b Glyphosate rate % Inihibition Spray composition g a.e./haCASOB Formulation B 500 35 800 37 1200 34 Formulation C 500 49 800 491200 66 Formulation B + 500 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 50 1200 71Formulation B + 500 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 800 49 1200 78Formulation C + 500 60 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 75 1200 68Formulation C + 500 47 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 800 85 1200 74 19-01 50054 800 51 1200 43 19-02 500 37 800 69 1200 52 19-03 500 35 800 51 120043 19-04 500 71 800 69 1200 57 19-05 500 47 800 73 1200 89 19-06 500 49800 51 1200 73

On CASOB, the addition of Fluorad FC-135 to a glyphosate compositioncontaining lecithin significantly enhanced herbicidal effectiveness(compare compositions 19-05 and 19-02). However, where glyphosate wassonicated together with the lecithin (composition 19-06), herbicidaleffectiveness was reduced.

Example 20

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 20a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 20a % w/w Spray Lecithin Fluorad Diacid Components composition g/lFC-135 1550 sonicated with lecithin 20-01 2.5 none 20-02 0.5 none 20-030.2 none 20-04 2.5 0.05 none 20-05 0.5 0.05 none 20-06 0.2 0.05 none20-07 0.5 0.05 Diacid

Common lambsquarter (Chenopodium album, CHEAL) plants were grown andtreated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spraycompositions were made 31 days after planting CHEAL, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

In addition to compositions 20-01 to 20-07, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with 0.5% Fluorad FC-135.Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparative treatments.Results averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown inTable 20b.

TABLE 20b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha CHEALFormulation B 150 0 250 0 350 3 Formulation C 150 18 250 68 350 98Formulation B + 150 0 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 10 350 5 FormulationC + 150 3 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 50 350 60 20-01 150 0 250 27 35060 20-02 150 0 250 5 350 8 20-03 150 5 250 0 350 8 20-04 150 18 250 29350 63 20-05 150 17 250 14 350 87 20-06 150 44 250 40 350 38 20-07 15010 250 35 350 73

Glyphosate activity on CHEAL was very weak in this test and nodefinitive conclusions can be drawn. However, none of the compositionsof the invention performed as well as the commercial standardFormulation C in this test. Fluorad FC-135 at the extremely lowconcentration of 0.05% was ineffective as a tank-mix additive, butaddition of 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 did enhance the performance ofcompositions containing lecithin (compare compositions 20-04 to 20-06with 20-01 to 20-03).

Example 21

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 21a. Process (iii) wasfollowed forall compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 21a % w/w Components Spray Lecithin Fluorad Aerosol Methylsonicated composition g/l FC-135 OT caprate with lecithin 21-01 2.5 none21-02 2.5 glyphosate 21-03 1.0 none 21-04 1.0 glyphosate 21-05 0.5 none21-06 0.5 glyphosate 21-07 0.2 none 21-08 0.2 glyphosate 21-09 0.5 0.05none 21-10 0.5 0.05 AOT, glyphosate 21-11 0.5 0.05 AOT 21-12 2.5 0.25none 21-13 0.5 0.05 none 21-14 0.5 0.05 glyphosate 21-15 0.5 0.05 Mecaprate 21-16 0.5 0.05 0.05 Me caprate 21-17 0.2 0.02 none 21-18 0.20.02 glyphosate 21-19 0.2 0.02 Me caprate

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF), and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 19 days after planting ABUTH and 22 daysafter planting ECHCF. No record was found for the planting date forSIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days afterapplication.

In addition to compositions 21-01 to 21-19. spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 21b.

TABLE 21b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Formulation B 150 16 23 30 250 17 33 57 350 24 43 65Formulation C 150 18 58 53 250 30 71 79 350 49 83 94 Formulation B + 15027 59 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 45 84 81 350 55 82 91 FormulationB + 150 17 43 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 21 56 75 350 64 80 90Formulation B + 150 22 27 38 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 37 49 69 35048 68 94 Formulation C + 150 41 41 59 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 250 57 5385 350 67 67 94 Formulation C + 150 26 39 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v250 46 66 88 350 75 73 93 Formulation C + 150 30 52 66 Fluorad FC-1350.02% w/v 250 67 50 89 350 61 88 92 21-01 150 35 62 64 250 63 77 90 35071 83 85 21-02 150 35 44 67 250 53 79 86 350 58 92 90 21-03 150 37 50 71250 53 76 90 350 73 63 97 21-04 150 29 46 61 250 43 77 85 350 70 85 9621-05 150 12 36 59 250 43 55 83 350 53 77 87 21-06 150 19 69 67 250 6247 84 350 58 60 95 21-07 150 14 59 59 250 39 63 75 350 46 77 91 21-08150 36 37 64 250 38 68 82 350 47 80 79 21-09 150  8 35 27 250  9 51 56350 36 58 67 21-10 150  5 33 24 250 15 73 47 350 30 66 67 21-11 150 3849 73 250 62 75 89 350 71 75 98 21-12 150  7 41 21 250 18 67 38 350 3064 61 21-13 150 39 72 65 250 65 55 76 350 70 68 90 21-14 150 51 53 66250 60 82 85 350 65 83 95 21-15 150 15 59 61 250 31 54 83 350 57 67 8421-16 150 36 79 66 250 50 60 95 350 71 95 95 21-17 150 30 52 75 250 5460 84 350 48 84 93 21-18 150 43 75 69 250 47 78 88 350 missing missing90 21-19 150 13 42 61 250 29 51 79 350 42 69 90

In this test the concentration of Fluorad FC-135 which had to be addedin tank-mix to Formulation B to bring its herbicidal performance up tothat of Formulation C was approximately 0.25% for ECHCF, 0.1% for SIDSPand 0.02% for ABUTH. The herbicidal effectiveness of composition 21-12(0.25% lecithin, 0.25% Fluorad FC-135) was uncharacteristically weak inthis test. However, composition 21-13 (0.05% lecithin, 0.05% FluoradFC-135) performed well as in previous tests, exceeding the herbicidaleffectiveness of Formulation C on ABUTH, at least equalling it on SIDSPand not quite equalling it on ECHCF. Contrary to results obtained inother tests, improved effectiveness on ECHCF and SIDSP was obtained bysonicating the glyphosate with the lecithin (composition 21-14 versus21-13). The inclusion of methyl caprate (compositions 21-15 and 21-16)also improved efficacy on these species. Surprisingly high herbicidaleffectiveness was seen in this test with compositions containingultra-low concentrations of lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 (0.02% of each,21-17 and 21-18).

Example 22

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 22a. Process (iv) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of these compositions was not recorded.

TABLE 22a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad composition a.e. LecithinMON 0818 FC-135 22-01 10  5.0 22-02 10 10.0 22-03 10 12.5 22-04 10 15.022-05 10 20.0 22-06 10 30.0 22-07 15 4.0 1.0 22-08 20 5.0 0.5 22-09 205.0 1.0 22-10 20 5.0 2.0 22-11 20 4.0 1.0 22-12 25 5.0 0.5 22-13 25 5.01.0 22-14 25 5.0 2.0 22-15 25 4.0 1.0 22-16 25 5.0 5.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Formulation C was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averagedfor all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 22b.

TABLE 22b Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 56 13 45 112 43 75 224 64 94 448 88 97 22-01112 38 61 224 56 80 448 76 97 22-02 112 50 51 224 69 91 448 81 97 22-03112 51 63 224 64 83 448 81 96 22-04 112 53 61 224 71 91 448 78 95 22-05112 41 56 224 70 85 448 75 97 22-06 112 38 53 224 63 89 448 75 94 22-07112 48 53 224 49 84 448 75 90 22-08 112 31 60 224 53 84 448 66 90 22-09112 26 56 224 53 85 448 78 96 22-10 112 36 60 224 53 85 448 79 98 22-11112 41 59 224 49 73 448 76 95 22-12 112 30 56 224 50 74 448 65 89 22-13112 34 55 224 44 80 448 73 95 22-14 112 39 61 224 56 85 448 69 91 22-15112 31 55 224 56 69 448 79 95 22-16 112 29 64 224 58 86 448 78 91

None of the concentrate compositions of this Example containing 10%glyphosate a.e. and varying amounts of Fluorad FC-135 (22-01 to 22-06)exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness than the commercial standardFormulation C. It should be noted that the amounts of Fluorad FC-135used in this Example were extremely high, the weight/weight ratio ofFluorad FC-135 to glyphosate a.e. ranging from 1:2 to 3:1.

Example 23

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 23a. Process (iv) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 23a % w/w Concentrate Glyphoaste Fluorad Components compositiona.e. Lecithin MON 0818 FC-135 sonicated with lecithin 23-01 20 5.0 2.0none 23-02 20 4.0 1.0 none 23-03 20 5.0 2.0 glyphosate 23-04 20 4.0 1.0glyphosate 23-05 20 5.0 2.0 5.0 none

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grows and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and 18 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 23b.

TABLE 23b Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 112 33 53 224 58 78 336 80 89 448 79 88Formulation C 112 49 79 224 59 94 336 84 100 448 95 100 23-01 112 39 66224 63 93 336 81 98 448 86 100 23-02 112 29 46 224 55 83 336 79 91 44885 95 23-03 112 30 59 224 60 98 336 80 100 448 81 100 23-04 112 26 51224 53 83 336 76 86 448 86 99 23-05 112 46 51 224 59 89 336 79 96 448 8998

Concentrate composition 23-05 (5% lecithin. 2% MON 0818, 5% FluoradFC-135) did not exhibit greater herbicidal effectiveness in this testthan composition 23-01 lacking the Fluorad FC-135.

Example 24

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 24a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of these compositions was not recorded.

TABLE 24a Spray Lecithin % w/w Components composition g/l Fluorad FC-135sonicated with lecithin 24-01 2.5 none 24-02 1.0 none 24-03 0.5 none24-04 0.2 none 24-05 0.1 none 24-06 2.5 0.25 none 24-07 0.5 0.05 none24-08 0.2 0.02 none 24-09 0.2 0.02 glyphosate 24-10 0.2 0.02 FC-13524-11 0.1 0.01 none 24-12 0.1 0.01 glyphosate 24-13 0.1 0.02 FC-13524-14 0.5 0.02 none 24-15 0.5 0.02 glyphosate 24-16 0.5 0.02 FC-135

Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown andtreated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spraycompositions were made 29 days after planting, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 33 days after application.

In addition to compositions 24-01 to 24-16, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 24b.

TABLE 24b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha CYPESFormulation B 400 32 750 68 1000 70 Formulation C 400 25 750 66 1000 89Formulation B + 400 49 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 750 75 1000 82Formulation B + 400 53 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 750 74 1000 64Formulation B + 400 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 750 83 1000 83Formulation B + 400 61 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 750 67 1000 88Formulation C + 400 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 750 47 1000 79Formulation C + 400 50 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 750 73 1000 81Formulation C + 400 41 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 750 79 1000 81Formulation C + 400 67 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 750 77 1000 72 24-01 40062 750 73 1000 100 24-02 400 61 750 85 1000 92 24-03 400 81 750 83 100087 24-04 400 59 750 79 1000 79 24-05 400 69 750 69 1000 91 24-06 400 75750 80 1000 96 24-07 400 65 750 69 1000 89 24-08 400 67 750 69 1000 8724-09 400 76 750 77 1000 80 24-10 400 71 750 75 1000 86 24-11 400 69 75077 1000 85 24-12 400 59 750 85 1000 95 24-13 400 61 750 75 1000 81 24-14400 64 750 83 1000 90 24-15 400 53 750 81 1000 86 24-16 400 85 750 861000 81

The tank-mix treatments of this Example show surprisingly little effecton herbicidal effectiveness on CYPES of reducing Fluorad FC-135concentration from 0.25% all the way down to 0.01%. At thisextraordinarily low concentration, the tank mix of Formulation B withFluorad FC-135 still performed equal or better than Formulation C alone.Lecithin alone was an unexpectedly effective excipient for glyphosate inthis test (see compositions 24-01 to 24-05) and the addition of FluoradFC-135 to lecithin did not in every case give further enhancement ofherbicidal efficacy.

Example 25

Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixingFormulation B with excipients as shown in Table 25. Soybean lecithin(20% phospholipid, Avanti) was used in the form of a 10% dispersionprepared by sonication as in process (iii).

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 21 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown inTable 25.

TABLE 25 Glyphosate Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haAdditive Add rate % w/v ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 56 3 17 112 7 38 22430 58 336 60 67 None 0 MON 0818 5.0 7 30 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 5 3 lecithin5.0 0 0 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.005 0 48 112 3 60 224 53 85 336 5887 Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.01 3 50 112 10 67 224 52 87 336 67 92Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.05 7 52 112 10 67 224 60 93 336 68 96Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.1 10 55 112 12 70 224 57 97 336 80 97Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.2 10 65 112 22 70 224 58 97 336 85 97Formulation B 56 MON 0818 0.5 13 65 112 33 77 224 72 99 336 88 100Formulation B 56 MON 0818 1.0 15 68 112 55 80 224 78 98 336 95 100Formulation B 56 MON 0818 2.0 27 75 112 62 78 224 83 100 336 100 99Formulation B 56 MON 0818 5.0 23 55 112 53 77 224 72 90 336 97 88Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.005 2 47 112 10 50 224 25 70 336 55 78Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.01 7 40 112 15 57 224 70 67 336 80 80Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.05 2 48 112 15 57 224 70 78 336 78 88Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1 5 45 112 18 58 224 75 87 336 80 90Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.2 12 48 112 27 60 224 75 90 336 97 93Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.5 3 47 112 12 57 224 75 80 336 78 83Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 1.0 5 43 112 10 52 224 77 75 336 78 77Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 2.0 7 42 112 10 47 224 65 65 336 72 77Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 2 38 112 5 47 224 63 60 336 67 63Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 0 10 112 10 45 224 67 70 336 67 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 2 20 112 12 47 224 63 70 336 68 85Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 3 32 112 12 52 224 63 73 336 72 82Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.1 8 37 112 10 50 224 65 73 336 78 83Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 5 45 112 43 63 224 68 82 336 80 92Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 13 50 112 42 65 224 67 88 336 68 87Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 13 52 112 50 72 224 67 80 336 68 88Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 10 53 112 37 72 224 72 88 336 87 97Formulation B 56 lecithin 5.0 10 50 112 55 73 224 72 80 336 78 95 336 6763 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 0 10 112 10 45 224 67 70 336 67 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 2 20 112 12 47 224 63 70 336 68 85Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 3 32 112 12 52 224 63 73 336 72 82Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.1 8 37 112 10 50 224 65 73 336 78 83Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 5 45 112 43 63 224 68 82 336 80 92Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 13 50 112 42 65 224 67 88 336 68 87Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 13 52 112 50 72 224 67 80 336 68 88Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 10 53 112 37 72 224 72 88 336 87 97Formulation B 56 lecithin 5.0 10 50 112 55 73 224 72 80 336 78 95

This test was an expanded rate titration study of MON 0818, FluoradFC-135 and lecithin as tank-mix adjuvants for glyphosate as FormulationB. On ABUTH, the optimum adjuvant concentration was 2.0% for MON 0818,0.2% for Fluorad FC-135 and 0.2% or higher for lecithin. On ECHCF, theoptimum adjuvant concentration was 0.5% to 2.0% for MON 0818, 0.2% forFluorad FC-135 and 2.0% for lecithin.

Example 26

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 26a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 26a Spray Lecithin % w/w composition g/l Fluorad FC-135 Aerosol OT26-01 0.1 26-02 0.05 26-03 0.02 26-04 0.1 0.1 26-05 0.05 0.05 26-06 0.020.02 26-07 1.0 0.10 26-08 1.0 0.10 0.10 26-09 1.0 26-10 1.0 0.10 26-110.5 26-12 0.5 0.05 26-13 0.5 0.05 26-14 0.5 0.05 0.05 26-15 0.2 26-160.2 0.02 26-17 0.2 0.02 26-18 0.2 0.02 0.02

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 16 days after planting ABUTH, 19 daysafter planting ECHCF, and 26 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done for ABUTH and ECHCF 15 days afterapplication and for SIDSP 21 days after application.

In addition to compositions 26-01 to 26-18, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 26b.

TABLE 26b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Formulation B 150 37 71 57 250 57 79 69 400 74 86 80 500 7989 74 Formulation C 150 48 42 58 250 71 80 81 400 88 100 88 500 92 10086 Formulation B + 150 87 62 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 87 96 70 40091 94 75 Formulation B + 150 61 48 65 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 81 6971 400 90 91 67 Formulation B + 150 58 32 62 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v250 75 49 51 400 81 83 73 Formulation C + 150 78 61 76 Fluorad FC-1350.1% w/v 250 79 77 81 400 93 100 78 Formulation C + 150 43 86 69 FluoradFC-135 0.05% w/v 250 79 100 80 400 95 98 84 Formulation C + 150 39 56 77Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 77 100 86 400 88 100 80 26-01 150 63 48 49250 70 69 66 26-02 150 32 36 55 250 64 74 65 400 77 92 69 26-03 150 3078 51 250 59 79 66 400 83 93 74 26-04 150 86 50 65 250 74 98 71 400 8189 75 26-05 150 85 55 60 250 81 75 73 400 82 81 64 26-06 150 61 67 45250 66 78 61 400 83 77 67 26-07 150 46 38 44 250 56 85 64 400 75 96 7826-08 150 88 63 70 250 87 73 79 400 91 82 75 26-09 150 63 72 61 250 8773 71 400 89 87 80 26-10 150 81 72 61 250 85 62 82 400 87 89 76 26-11150 54 57 68 250 80 90 74 400 84 95 66 26-12 150 27 53 47 250 57 71 67400 72 91 70 26-13 150 78 59 64 250 80 84 80 400 89 76 77 26-14 150 8452 68 250 88 69 75 400 90 84 66 26-15 150 51 57 55 250 81 55 71 400 8883 69 26-16 150 40 68 46 250 74 89 60 400 77 98 63 26-17 150 64 44 58250 80 93 81 400 87 99 69 26-18 150 64 87 50 250 77 75 70 400 90 89 50

This test was designed in part to explore the relative contribution ofFluorad FC-135 and lecithin to the herbicidal effectiveness ofglyphosate compositions comprising both of these excipient substances.Fluorad FC-135 was applied as sole excipient at concentrations of 1.0%,0.5% and 0.2% (see tank-mix treatments with Formulation B). Lecithin wasapplied as sole excipient at the same three concentrations incompositions 26-09, 26-11 and 26-15. Combinations of the two excipientsat equal concentrations were applied in corresponding compositions26-10, 26-13 and 26-17. The data are highly variable but an overalltrend can be discerned. When only one of the two excipients was present,herbicidal effectiveness tended to drop off as the concentration of thatexcipient was reduced. When both excipients were present, there wasscarcely any decline in herbicidal effectiveness as excipientconcentration was reduced. Although averages of data from threeglyphosate rates across three species can be misleading, it is helpfulin this case to reduce the mass of individual data to the following suchaverages of percent inhibition:

Glyphosate (Formulation B) 68% Glyphosate + 0.1% Fluorad FC-135 81%Glyphosate + 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 71% Glyphosate + 0.02% Fluorad FC-13563% Glyphosate + 0 1% lecithin 76% Glyphosate + 0.05% lecithin 74%Glyphosate + 0.02% lecithin 68% Glyphosate + 0.1% Fluorad FC-135 + 0.1%lecithin 77% Glyphosate + 0.05% Fluorad FC-135 + 0.05% lecithin 76%Glyphosate + 0.02% Fluorad FC-135 + 0.02% lecithin 75% Glyphosatecommercial standard (Formulation C) 73%

Thus, when both excipients are used together, a fivefold decrease inexcipient concentration results in a decline in overall herbicidaleffectiveness of only 2 percentage points, still retaining overalleffectiveness at least equal to that of the commercial standard.

Example 27

Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixingFormulations B with excipients as shown in Table 27. Soybean lecithin(20% phospholipid, Avanti) was used in the form of a 10% dispersionprepared by sonication as in process (iii).

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 15 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown inTable 27.

TABLE 27 Glyphosate Glyphosate rate Additive rate % Inhibitioncomposition g a.e./ha Additive % v/v ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 56 none 03 112 5 13 224 40 40 336 83 77 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.005 0 7112 3 10 224 45 53 336 58 78 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.01 0 8112 2 12 224 45 60 336 67 87 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.05 2 8112 20 23 224 72 88 336 90 93 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.1 3 10112 33 38 224 73 88 336 93 92 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.2 10 17112 33 47 224 77 85 336 93 92 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 0.5 7 13112 37 37 224 80 85 336 96 95 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 1.0 3 7112 27 35 224 72 87 336 88 92 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 2.0 0 0112 27 18 224 72 75 336 87 87 Formulation B 56 Fluorad FC-135 5.0 0 0112 12 13 224 43 50 336 58 53 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1)0.005 0 2 112 7 13 224 65 63 336 83 82 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135(1:1) 0.01 0 0 112 3 10 224 45 53 336 58 78 Formulation B 56lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.05 0 0 112 42 13 224 68 73 336 98 73 FormulationB 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.1 0 0 112 37 20 224 62 68 336 94 77Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.2 0 2 112 33 28 224 67 68 336100 78 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 0.5 7 0 112 40 18 224 6868 336 90 73 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 1.0 17 3 112 43 45224 83 88 336 95 94 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 2.0 10 23 11232 42 224 63 73 336 88 87 Formulation B 56 lecithin/FC-135 (1:1) 5.0 2 3112 18 28 224 50 72 336 85 87 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.005 2 2 112 310 224 45 50 336 58 72 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.01 0 2 112 2 12 22440 52 336 65 75 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.05 2 2 112 0 10 224 40 45336 57 70 Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.1 2 7 112 2 13 224 33 37 336 48 67Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.2 3 3 112 3 13 224 32 35 336 47 68Formulation B 56 lecithin 0.5 2 3 112 8 15 224 47 53 336 67 65Formulation B 56 lecithin 1.0 2 5 112 10 15 224 33 55 336 70 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 2.0 5 8 112 12 17 224 48 52 336 68 77Formulation B 56 lecithin 5.0 5 17 12 23 17 224 52 55 336 73 78

This tank-mix study more clearly demonstrates the surprising interactionseen in Example 26 between lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 as excipients forglyphosate. For example, glyphosate alone over four rates gave averageinhibition of ABUTH of 32%. Adding Fluorad FC-135 at a concentration of0.5% boosted the average inhibition to 55%, but adding lecithin at thesame concentration did not raise average inhibition above 32%. A 1:1combination of both excipients at the same total concentration gave anaverage inhibition of51%. At a concentration of 0.1%, Fluorad FC-135gave average inhibition of 50%, lecithin 21% (i.e. a reduction ineffectiveness of glyphosate) and the 1:1 combination 48%. Thus, as inExample 26, the decline in herbicidal effectiveness with reducingexcipient rate was much less pronounced with the combination than witheither excipient on its own.

Example 28

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 28a. Process (i) wasfollowed for compositions 28-01 to 28-06. Process (iv) was followed forcompositions 28-07 to 28-11, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). For compositions 28-12 and 28-13, process (iv) was also used,but Aerosol TO was the aggregate-forming material employed in place oflecithin. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 28a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad (*) Other compositiona.e. Lecithin FC-135 MON 0818 Other (*) components 28-01 20 1.0 PVA28-02 20 5.0 1.0 PVA 28-03 20 2.0 1.0 PVA 28-04 20 1.0 1.0 PVA 28-05 200.5 Kelzan 28-06 20 2.0 0.5 Kelzan 28-07 20 2.0 0.04 28-08 20 2.0 2.00.04 28-09 20 2.0 2.0 0.02 28-10 20 2.0 0.04 25.0  Silwet 800 28-11 202.0 2.0 0.04 25.0  Silwet 800 28-12 20 5.0 Aerosol OT 28-13 20 5.0 +25.0 Aerosol OT + Silwet 800

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 38 days after application.

Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, as shown in Table 28b.

TABLE 28b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 56 0 8 112 4 33 224 45 40 336 69 65Formulation C 56 0 10 112 5 43 224 68 73 336 87 94 28-01 112 0 40 224 5076 336 76 85 28-02 112 1 35 224 30 70 336 69 96 28-03 112 6 35 224 35 58336 65 84 28-04 112 1 35 224 70 60 336 69 85 28-05 112 1 35 224 63 68336 80 88 28-06 112 0 25 224 40 55 336 66 73 28-07 112 11 35 224 45 68336 65 86 28-08 112 9 38 224 65 60 336 66 75 28-09 112 10 33 224 56 60336 78 75 28-10 112 30 5 224 79 30 336 90 35 28-11 112 60 5 224 79 33336 96 30 28-12 112 8 11 224 53 40 336 66 64 28-13 112 40 6 224 91 33336 98 38

Concentrate compositions 28-08 and 28-09 did not in this test exhibitherbicidal effectiveness equal to Formulation C.

Example 29

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 29a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% or 45%phospholipid as indicated below, both sourced from Avanti). The pH ofall compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 29a Lecithin % w/w Spray composition g/l phospholipid % FluoradFC-135 29-01 0.25 20 29-02 0.05 20 29-03 0.02 20 29-04 0.01 20 29-050.25 20 0.25 29-06 0.05 20 0.05 29-07 0.02 20 0.02 29-08 0.01 20 0.0129-09 0.25 45 29-10 0.05 45 29-11 0.02 45 29-12 0.01 45 29-13 0.25 450.25 29-14 0.05 45 0.05 29-15 0.02 45 0.02 29-16 0.01 45 0.01

Yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus, CYPES) plants were grown andtreated by the standard procedures given above. Applications of spraycompositions were made 27 days after planting CYPES. Evaluation was done27 days after application.

In addition to compositions 29-01 to 29-16, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C were applied as comparativetreatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, areshown in Table 29b.

TABLE 29b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha CYPESFormulation B 500 25 800 41 1200 59 Formulation C 500 29 800 43 1200 62Formulation B + Fluorad FC-135 500 60 0.25% w/v 800 57 1200 79Formulation B + Fluorad FC-135 500 63 0.05% w/v 800 54 1200 65Formulation B + Fluorad FC-135 500 50 0.02% w/v 800 71 1200 60Formulation B + Fluorad FC-135 500 27 0.01% w/v 800 35 1200 81Formulation C + Fluorad FC-135 500 41 0.25% w/v 800 72 1200 75Formulation C + Fluorad FC-135 500 52 0.05% w/v 800 43 1200 63Formulation C + Fluorad FC-135 500 76 0.02% w/v 800 72 1200 82Formulation C + Fluorad FC-135 500 38 0.01% w/v 800 59 1200 72 29-01 50051 800 70 1200 64 29-02 500 58 800 69 1200 77 29-03 500 49 800 67 120085 29-04 500 51 800 76 1200 77 29-05 500 37 800 73 1200 100 29-06 400 72750 62 1000 67 29-07 400 68 750 75 1000 86 29-08 400 59 750 78 1000 8829-09 400 72 750 80 1000 88 29-10 400 67 750 77 1000 89 29-11 400 67 75075 1000 66 29-12 400 55 750 75 1000 83 29-13 400 33 750 59 1000 73 29-14400 63 750 77 1000 76 29-15 400 35 750 75 1000 88 29-16 400 77 750 661000 86

This test was conducted to investigate the effect of phospholipidcontent of lecithin on herbicidal efficacy of lecithin-containingglyphosate compositions. No clear pattern emerged from this study, butoverall it appeared that the crude lecithin (20% phospholipid) providedgreater herbicidal effectiveness on CYPES than the de-oiled lecithin(45% phospholipid), suggesting that the oil present in crude lecithinmight be having an adjuvant effect on this species.

Example 30

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 30a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20%, 45% or 95%phospholipid as indicated below, all sourced from Avanti). The pH of allcompositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 30a Lecithin % w/w Spray composition g/l phospholipid % FluoradFC-135 30-01 0.5 20 30-02 0.2 20 30-03 0.1 20 30-04 0.5 45 30-05 0.2 4530-06 0.1 45 30-07 0.5 95 30-08 0.2 95 30-09 0.1 95 30-10 0.5 20 0.0530-11 0.5 45 0.05 30-12 0.5 95 0.05 30-13 0.2 20 0.02 30-14 0.2 45 0.0230-15 0.2 95 0.02 30-16 0.1 20 0.01 30-17 0.1 45 0.01 30-18 0.1 95 0.01

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 17 days after planting ABUTH, 19 daysafter planting ECHCF, and 23 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 30-01 to 30-18, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 30b.

TABLE 30b Glyphosate % Inhibition Spray composition rate g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Formulation B 100 10 25 33 200 22 29 49 300 50 62 61 400 6262 64 Formulation C 100 14 40 34 200 53 98 66 300 74 100 84 400 86 10093 Formulation B + 100 18 25 34 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 50 58 52300 68 83 70 Formulation B + 100 10 21 29 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 20064 40 46 300 79 62 64 Formulation B + 100 10 21 34 Fluorad FC-135 0.01%w/v 200 34 27 44 300 73 74 69 Formulation C + 100 65 53 58 FluoradFC-135 0.05% w/v 200 73 77 65 300 94 99 73 Formulation C + 100 68 94 61Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 63 93 66 300 85 90 79 Formulation C + 10072 67 53 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 69 99 61 300 81 99 83 30-01 100 3226 39 200 72 60 56 300 84 72 69 30-02 100 14 23 43 200 70 42 63 300 8374 68 30-03 100 6 25 42 200 55 47 57 300 65 64 72 30-04 100 29 31 42 20055 65 60 300 82 54 73 30-05 100 14 22 41 200 32 35 66 300 81 98 70 30-06100 9 26 29 200 47 48 57 300 69 71 71 30-07 100 30 22 50 200 73 50 69300 82 86 67 30-08 100 41 23 53 200 57 38 69 300 76 46 84 30-09 100 3217 45 200 60 37 67 300 78 77 73 30-10 100 58 27 62 200 91 42 79 300 9395 77 30-11 100 66 58 63 200 91 79 69 300 91 84 84 30-12 100 61 27 67200 90 72 77 300 93 83 84 30-13 100 61 24 51 200 88 48 69 300 94 54 7530-14 100 66 25 56 200 90 49 72 300 93 73 85 30-15 100 63 23 61 200 8833 72 300 95 75 81 30-16 100 75 25 56 200 87 37 74 300 93 71 77 30-17100 63 17 59 200 92 27 73 300 92 83 78 30-18 100 67 22 53 200 91 38 68300 91 46 77

In general, across the three species included in this test, compositionscontaining the 45% phospholipid grade of soybean lecithin providedslightly greater herbicidal effectiveness than those containing the 20%grade. Any further improvement obtained by using the 95% grade wasminimal and would likely not justify the considerably increased cost ofthis grade. The data of this test clearly show a non-additiveinteraction between lecithin and Fluorad FC-135. To take just oneexample for illustration, glyphosate alone (Formulation B) at 200 ga.e./ha gave 22% inhibition of ABUTH, 29% inhibition of ECHCF and 49%inhibition of SIDSP. Adding 0.02% Fluorad FC-135 brought thesepercentage inhibitions to 64%, 40% and 46% respectively. Alternatively,adding the 45% grade of lecithin at 0.02% (composition 30-05) resultedin percentage inhibitions of 32%, 135% and 36% respectively. Adding boththese excipients, each at 0.02% (composition 30-14) gave percentageinhibitions of 90%, 49% and 72% respectively. Even adding bothexcipients so that the total excipient concentration was 0.02%(composition 30-17) resulted in percentage inhibitions of 92%, 27% and73% respectively. Thus at least on the broadleaf species (ABUTH andSIDSP) there is strong evidence of a synergistic interaction betweenthese two excipient substances.

Example 31

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 31a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using lecithin (20% or 95% phospholipidfrom soybean, or 95% phospholipid from egg yolk, all sourced fromAvanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 31a Lecithin % w/w Spray phospho- Fluorad Fluorad composition g/llipid % source FC-135 FC-754 31-01 0.05 95 egg yolk 31-02 0.02 95 eggyolk 31-03 0.01 95 egg yolk 31-04 0.05 95 soybean 31-05 0.02 95 soybean31-06 0.01 95 soybean 31-07 0.05 95 egg yolk 0.05 31-08 0.02 95 egg yolk0.02 31-09 0.01 95 egg yolk 0.01 31-10 0.05 95 soybean 0.05 31-11 0.0295 soybean 0.02 31-12 0.01 95 soybean 0.01 31-13 0.05 20 soybean 0.0531-14 0.02 20 soybean 0.02

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 31-01 to 31-14, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 orFluorad FC-754 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alonewere applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 31b.

TABLE 31b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 100 1 27 200 6 28 300 2 35 400 31 46 Formulation C100 10 31 200 28 36 300 62 66 400 77 74 Formulation B + 100 19 24Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 37 40 300 62 52 Formulation B + 100 7 13Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 42 27 300 56 57 Formulation B + 100 23 19Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 43 24 300 60 40 Formulation B + 100 19 23Fluorad FC-754 0.05% w/v 200 41 33 300 67 62 Formulation B + 100 12 19Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 200 31 44 300 61 45 Formulation C + 100 37 39Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 200 49 43 300 66 62 Formulation C + 100 18 31Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 200 47 44 300 68 49 Formulation C + 100 26 27Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 200 36 44 300 54 82 Formulation C + 100 34 32Fluorad FC-754 0.05% w/v 200 47 37 300 62 62 Formulation C + 100 28 32Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 200 45 60 300 43 75 31-01 100 6 36 200 54 56300 66 61 31-02 100 23 43 200 45 45 300 65 51 31-03 100 31 35 200 37 45300 53 60 31-04 100 24 35 200 43 43 300 78 50 31-05 100 24 36 200 45 44300 58 66 31-06 100 31 24 200 46 34 300 52 51 31-07 100 49 33 200 65 39300 73 63 31-08 100 48 25 200 70 49 300 73 69 31-09 100 45 27 200 59 53300 71 84 31-10 100 60 30 200 64 89 300 75 99 31-11 100 47 51 200 66 65300 80 78 31-12 100 49 39 200 60 59 300 67 84 31-13 100 50 30 200 70 51300 68 66 31-14 100 54 33 200 61 44 300 79 66

In this test, glyphosate compositions containing egg yolk lecithin(31-01 to 31-03) performed similarly to those containing soybeanlecithin (31-04 to 31-06) on ABUTH but were generally more effectivethan those containing soybean lecithin on ECHCF, at least in the absenceof Fluorad FC-135. Addition of Fluorad FC-135, as in compositions 31-07to 31-12, enhanced effectiveness of all compositions.

Example 32

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 32a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 32a Lecithin % w/w Type of Spray composition g/l fluoro-organicfluoro-organic 32-01 0.20 none 32-02 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-135 32-03 0.200.02 Fluorad FC-431 32-04 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-751 32-05 0.20 0.02Fluorad FC-170C 32-06 0.20 0.02 Fluorad FC-171 32-07 0.20 0.02 FluoradFC-754 32-08 0.50 none 32-09 0.10 none 32-10 0.04 none 32-11 0.02 none

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF,and 27 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibitionwas done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 32-01 to 32-11, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with various fluoro-organicsurfactants of the Fluorad range, all at 0.02%. Formulations B and Calone were applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 32b.

TABLE 32b Glyphosate % Inhibition Spray composition rate g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Formulation B 150 8 35 35 250 21 47 37 350 31 36 56 450 5752 64 Formulation C 150 29 69 49 250 55 90 67 350 75 91 75 450 82 91 85Formulation B + 150 17 43 36 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 39 58 53 35052 53 68 Formulation B + 150 13 25 32 Fluorad FC-170C 250 31 47 36 0.02%w/v 350 31 85 61 Formulation B + 150 52 15 Fluorad FC-171 0.02% w/v 25010 47 44 350 15 58 55 Formulation B + 150 4 36 34 Fluorad FC-431 0.02%w/v 250 23 53 53 350 37 61 62 Formulation B + 150 12 29 29 FluoradFC-751 0.02% w/v 250 30 38 41 350 43 36 58 Formulation B + 150 21 27 33Fluorad FC-754 0.02% w/v 250 3 36 49 350 38 51 59 Formulation C + 150 353 46 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 66 87 58 350 78 99 80 Formulation C +150 29 68 41 Fluorad FC-170C 250 54 78 61 0.02% w/v 350 59 86 78Formulation C + 150 20 96 35 Fluorad FC-171 0.02% w/v 250 37 99 62 35055 100 65 Formulation C + 150 20 94 41 Fluorad FC-431 0.02% w/v 250 5185 68 350 66 97 74 Formulation C + 150 15 67 38 Fluorad FC-751 0.02% w/v250 36 85 56 350 60 100 72 Formulation C + 150 33 78 37 Fluorad FC-7540.02% w/v 250 75 85 66 350 82 94 80 32-01 150 25 35 45 250 43 52 63 35060 90 77 32-02 150 65 37 58 250 69 69 67 350 66 69 78 32-03 150 14 40 41250 45 78 63 350 55 92 75 32-04 150 19 48 48 250 36 51 63 350 65 69 7032-05 150 47 34 45 250 55 43 55 350 63 58 75 32-06 150 23 36 46 250 5752 59 350 61 73 67 32-07 150 67 59 58 250 81 73 72 350 80 76 76 32-08150 37 49 60 250 60 83 69 350 67 93 49 32-09 150 19 63 51 250 53 71 62350 55 74 82 32-10 150 19 70 51 250 39 94 61 350 63 87 73 32-11 150 6 5150 250 58 67 66 350 69 92 73

Composition 32-07, containing 0.02% lecithin and 0.02% Fluorad FC-754,was equal or superior to composition 32-02, containing 02% lecithin and0.02% Fluorad FC-135, in herbicidal effectiveness. This indicates thatFluorad FC-754 is an acceptable substitute for Fluorad FC-135 in suchcompositions. The other fluoro-organic surfactants tested in thisExample, none of which is cationic, were less effective than thecationic fluoro-organics Fluorad FC-135 and Fluorad FC-754 as excipientsin combination with lecithin. A possible exception was Fluorad FC-170Cwhich gave good enhancement of glyphosate effectiveness on ECHCF only.

Example 33

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 33a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 33a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate MON Agrimul Fluorad compositiona.e. Lecithin 0818 PG-2069 FC-135 33-01 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 33-02 30 3.00.25 1.0 33-03 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 33-04 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 33-05 30 1.0 0.503.0 33-06 30 1.0 1.0 33-07 30 1.0 0.25 1.0 33-08 30 3.0 0.50 2.0 33-0930 2.0 3.0 33-10 30 3.0 0.50

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 33b.

TABLE 33b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 56 3 5 112 49 48 224 79 83 448 99 99Formulation J 56 16 20 112 40 43 224 80 81 448 97 99 33-01 56 4 5 112 3520 224 81 51 448 99 80 33-02 56 0 5 112 4 20 224 66 55 448 94 80 33-0356 1 5 112 6 20 224 78 74 448 93 80 33-04 56 1 5 112 1 15 224 75 65 44895 80 33-05 56 0 5 112 1 15 224 75 65 448 91 80 33-06 56 0 5 112 3 15224 55 63 448 91 79 33-07 56 1 5 112 3 15 224 48 55 448 88 81 33-08 56 39 112 3 20 224 66 60 448 89 80 33-09 56 0 5 112 5 10 224 78 55 448 97 8033-10 56 0 5 112 4 15 224 21 55 448 88 79

Concentrate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 did notexhibit herbicidal effectiveness superior to commercial standardFormulations C and J in this test.

Example 34

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 34a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 34a Lecithin % w/w Spray composition g/l Fluorad FC-135 34-01 0.2534-02 0.05 34-03 0.02 34-04 0.01 34-05 0.25 0.25 34-06 0.05 0.05 34-070.02 0.02 34-08 0.01 0.01

Guineagrass (Panicum maximum, PANMA) plants were grown and treated bythe standard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositionswere made 78 days after planting PANMA, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 20 days after application.

In addition to composition 34-01 to 34-08, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulation B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Forumlations B and C alone were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 34b.

TABLE 34b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha PANMAFormulation B 400 61 800 89 1500 93 2000 97 Formulation C 400 85 800 941500 100 2000 100 Formulation B + 400 76 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 781500 97 Formulation B + 400 45 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 69 1500 89Formulation B + 400 39 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 71 1500 95Formulation B + 400 52 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 78 1500 99Formulation C + 400 82 Fluorad FC-135 0.25% w/v 800 97 1500 100Formulation C + 400 63 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 800 93 1500 100Formulation C + 400 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 800 98 1500 100Formulation C + 400 66 Fluorad FC-135 0.01% w/v 800 97 1500 100 34-01400 38 800 73 1500 92 34-02 400 64 800 83 1500 90 34-03 400 50 800 751500 99 34-04 400 48 800 88 1500 98 34-05 400 60 800 79 1500 99 34-06400 58 800 86 1500 99 34-07 400 55 800 86 1500 93 34-08 400 60 800 911500 98

Exceptionally high glyphosate activity was seen in this test even withFormulation B and no firm conclusions can be drawn. However, none of thecompositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 exceeded theeffectiveness of commercial standard Formulation C on PANMA under theconditions of this test.

Example 35

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 35a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 35a Concen- % w/w trate com- Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MONAgrimul position a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 PG-2069 35-01 30 3.03.0 0.25 35-02 30 3.0 1.0 0.25 35-03 30 3.0 3.0 0.25 35-04 30 1.0 3.00.50 35-05 30 1.0 3.0 0.50 35-06 30 1.0 1.0 35-07 30 1.0 1.0 0.25 35-0830 3.0 2.0 0.50 35-09 30 2.0 3.0 35-10 30 3.0 0.50 35-11 30 3.0 3.0 0.5035-12 30 2.0 1.0 0.375 35-13 30 1.0 2.0 0.25 35-14 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 35-1530 3.0 3.0 0.50 35-16 30 2.0 1.0 0.375 35-17 30 1.0 2.0 0.25 35-18 303.0 3.0 0.50

Quackgrass (Elymus repens, AGRRE) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 56 days after planting AGRRE, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 35b.

TABLE 35b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haAGRRE Formulation B 400 41 800 46 1000 55 1200 70 Formulation C 400 38800 47 1000 77 1200 77 Formulation J 400 60 800 84 1000 77 1200 85 35-01400 27 800 76 1000 79 35-02 400 49 800 66 1000 78 35-03 400 42 800 801000 83 35-04 400 31 800 71 1000 64 35-05 400 32 800 53 1000 59 35-06400 27 800 39 1000 65 35-07 400 29 800 54 1000 61 35-08 400 38 800 651000 81 35-09 400 31 800 55 1000 67 35-10 400 43 800 38 1000 58 35-11400 34 800 56 1000 75 35-12 400 29 800 51 1000 65 35-13 400 51 800 691000 83 35-14 400 39 800 63 1000 65 35-15 400 53 800 65 1000 77 35-16400 43 800 65 1000 82 35-17 400 69 800 84 1000 94 35-18 400 69 800 921000 92

Compositions of the invention exhibiting superior herbicidaleffectiveness to commercial standard Formulation C in this test on AGRREincluded 35-01, 35-02, 35-03, 35-13 and 35-15 to 35-18. Compositions35-17 and 35-18 were the most effective in this test, outperformingcommercial standard Formulation J as well as Formulation C.

Example 36

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 36a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The order of addition of ingredients was varied in compositions36-15 to 36-20 as shown below. The pH of all compositions wasapproximately 5.

TABLE 36a % w/w Lecithin order Conc. Glyphosate Fluorad Agrimulphospholipid of addition comp. a.e. Lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 MON 0818 %(*) 36-01 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 45 A 36-02 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 45 A 36-03 30 3.03.0 0.75 45 A 36-04 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 0.5 45 A(**) 36-05 30 3.0 3.0 1.0045 A 36-06 30 3.0 3.0 2.00 45 A 36-07 30 3.0 3.0 3.00 45 A 36-08 30 3.03.0 4.00 45 A 36-09 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 A 36-10 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 B36-11 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 C 36-12 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 D 36-13 30 3.0 2.00.50 20 E 36-14 30 3.0 2.0 0.50 20 F 36-15 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 A 36-16 303.0 3.0 0.50 20 B 36-17 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 C 36-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 D36-19 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 E 36-20 30 3.0 3.0 0.50 20 F (*) Order ofaddition: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th A lecithin PG-2069 FC-135 water glyphosateB lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 water glyphosate C glyphosate water FC-135PG-2069 lecithin D glyphosate water PG-2069 FC-135 lecithin E glyphosatelecithin PG-2069 FC-135 water F glyphosate lecithin FC-135 PG-2069 water(**)where MON 0818 included, added with Agrimul PG-2069

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 22 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,average for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 36b.

TABLE 36b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 200 38 73 400 51 64 600 67 89 800 72 86Formulation C 200 57 75 400 77 98 600 92 97 800 100 100 Formulation J200 50 52 400 73 99 600 88 99 800 98 98 36-01 200 49 64 400 72 59 600 7887 36-02 200 54 72 400 78 71 600 97 90 36-03 200 57 62 400 80 78 600 8987 36-04 200 46 39 400 74 64 600 86 78 36-05 200 49 29 400 74 79 600 8390 36-06 200 49 65 400 70 88 600 87 88 36-07 200 49 51 400 67 77 600 8183 36-08 200 42 59 400 70 67 600 78 80 36-09 200 45 28 400 73 85 600 8798 36-10 200 57 82 400 76 89 600 87 98 36-11 200 56 80 400 84 84 600 85100 36-12 200 57 81 400 78 98 600 87 94 36-13 200 54 86 400 73 72 600 9697 36-14 200 56 73 400 69 98 600 85 94 36-15 200 40 41 400 85 88 600 8396 36-16 200 53 59 400 73 76 600 84 73 36-17 200 39 53 400 65 86 600 8681 36-18 200 49 31 400 69 52 600 73 75 36-19 200 47 50 400 74 86 600 8898 36-20 200 51 42 400 68 94 600 90 98

Order of addition of ingredients apparently had some influence onherbicidal effectiveness of compositions 36-09 to 36-20. However, asmost of these compositions showed poor short-term stability, it islikely that in at least some cases the uniformity of spray applicationwas affected and the results are therefore difficult to interpret.

Example 37

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 37a. Process (iv) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 37a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Aerosol Fluorad Methylcomposition g a.e./l Lecithin OT MON 0818 FC-754 caprate PVA 37-01 2002.0 0.25 37-02 300 3.0 0.50 37-03 300 3.0 0.50 2.0 37-04 200 2.0 0.251.5 37-05 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.0 37-06 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.0 37-07 200 2.00.25 2.0 37-08 200 2.0 0.25 37-09 300 3.0 0.50 37-10 300 3.0 0.50 2.037-11 200 2.0 0.25 1.5 37-12 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 37-13 200 2.0 0.25 1.037-14 200 2.0 0.25 1.0 1.5 37-15 200 2.0 0.25 2.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and 13 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Composition containing PVA were too vicous to spray and were not testedfor herbicidal effectiveness. Formulations B, C and J were applied ascomparative treatments. Results, average for all replicates of eachtreatment, are shown in Table 37b.

TABLE 37b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 112 5 4 224 48 8 336 73 20 448 94 50Formulation C 112 30 45 224 91 81 336 98 81 448 100 99 Formulation J 11250 35 224 80 65 336 97 88 448 100 90 37-01 112 11 8 224 50 40 336 71 61448 93 78 37-02 112 5 6 224 64 58 336 78 60 448 84 65 37-07 112 5 3 22446 38 336 73 83 448 93 66 37-08 112 8 13 224 43 46 336 73 65 448 83 7037-09 112 1 5 224 23 25 336 65 33 448 91 58 37-12 112 0 5 224 58 48 33673 63 448 91 63 37-13 112 0 10 224 53 38 336 73 45 448 88 50 37-15 11228 10 224 50 53 336 80 63 448 88 91

Concentrate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754 ormethyl caprate did not exhibit herbicidal effectiveness equal to that ofthe commercial standards in this test.

Example 38

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 38a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 38a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad composition a.e. LecithinFC-135 MON 0818 38-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 38-02 25 2.5 2.5 0.63 38-03 20 2.02.0 0.50 38-04 15 1.5 1.5 0.38 38-05 10 1.0 1.0 0.25 38-06 5 0.5 0.50.13 38-07 30 3.0 3.0 1.50 38-08 25 2.5 2.5 0.63 38-09 20 2.0 2.0 0.5038-10 15 1.5 1.5 0.38 38-11 10 1.0 1.0 0.25 38-12 5 0.5 0.5 0.13 38-1325 2.5 2.5 0.94 38-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.75 38-15 15 1.5 1.5 0.56 38-16 10 1.01.0 0.38 38-17 5 0.5 0.5 0.19

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

In addition to compositions 38-01 to 38-17, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 at twoconcentrations. Formulations B and C alone were applied as comparativetreatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, areshown in Table 38b.

TABLE 38b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 200 59 98 400 96 96 600 70 93 800 100 97Formulation C + 200 59 92 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 93 93 600 95 100 800100 97 Formulation C + 200 54 73 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 95 76 600 10082 800 100 95 Formulation J 200 55 87 400 92 98 600 97 94 800 99 96Formulation J + 200 67 88 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 89 89 600 94 87 800 9691 Formulation J + 200 71 81 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 75 95 600 96 99800 100 100 38-01 200 53 71 400 74 87 600 98 87 38-02 200 51 70 400 8896 600 89 99 38-03 200 51 85 400 81 97 600 96 94 38-04 200 51 63 400 8182 600 96 97 38-05 200 47 60 400 73 91 600 94 94 38-06 200 54 43 400 7388 600 92 87 38-07 200 60 70 400 84 93 600 90 98 38-08 200 49 55 400 7692 600 88 83 38-09 200 57 53 400 79 95 600 91 87 38-10 200 55 85 400 9097 600 94 96 38-11 200 64 43 400 77 87 600 93 96 38-12 200 54 72 400 8598 600 96 100 38-13 200 61 61 400 84 90 600 95 99 38-14 200 57 86 400 8290 600 99 98 38-15 200 59 89 400 78 96 600 93 97 38-16 200 53 87 400 8198 600 96 98 38-17 200 48 87 400 81 100 600 91 100

As concentrate compositions in previous Examples have tended to exhibitweaker herbicidal effectiveness than has been seen with ready-made spraycompositions, this test was conducted to determine if the degree ofconcentration at which a composition is prepared before dilution forspraying had an influence on effectiveness. No consistent trend was seenin this test.

Example 39

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 39a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 39a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Fluorad FC-135 Amine Type of comp. a.e.Lecithin or FC-754 surfactant amine surfactant 39-01 20 2.0 0.25 MON0818 39-02 20 3.0 0.25 MON 0818 39-03 20 3.0 3.0 (135) 0.25 MON 081839-04 20 3.0 3.0 (754) 0.25 MON 0818 39-05 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-2039-06 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-50 39-07 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-75 39-08 202.0 2.00 Triton RW-100 39-09 20 2.0 2.00 Triton RW-150 39-10 20 2.00Triton RW-20 39-11 20 2.00 Triton RW-50 39-12 20 2.00 Triton RW-75 39-1320 2.00 Triton RW-100 39-14 20 2.00 Triton RW-150

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.

Formulation C was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averagedfor all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 39b.

TABLE 39b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 112 0 10 224 10 20 336 47 30 448 63 40 39-01112 8 15 224 25 35 336 55 56 448 63 65 39-02 112 5 10 224 23 33 336 5564 448 66 60 39-03 112 28 15 224 55 35 336 74 58 448 76 65 39-04 112 158 224 53 45 336 73 55 448 75 64 39-05 112 0 8 224 14 45 336 45 70 448 6566 39-06 112 1 13 224 5 43 336 58 64 448 66 75 39-07 112 0 15 224 1 53336 45 78 448 60 83 39-08 112 0 10 224 25 45 336 50 79 448 68 88 39-09112 0 13 224 13 45 336 50 75 448 70 81 39-10 112 0 18 224 18 35 336 4865 448 66 76 39-11 112 1 0 224 35 25 336 38 55 448 50 78 39-12 112 8 25224 10 38 336 48 70 448 73 81 39-13 112 0 25 224 5 33 336 30 70 448 7475 39-14 112 0 12 224 0 30 336 12 70 448 40 80

No difference in herbicidal effectiveness was seen between compositions39-03 and 39-04. The only difference between these compositions is that39-03 contained Fluorad FC-135 and 39-04 contained Fluorad FC-754.

Example 40

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 40a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (20% or 45%phospholipid as indicated below, both sourced from Avanti). The pH ofall compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 40a % w/w Spray Lecithin Lecithin Fluorad Fluorad composition g/l% purity FC-135 FC-754 40-01 1.0 20 40-02 0.5 20 40-03 0.2 20 40-04 1.020 0.10 40-05 0.5 20 0.05 40-06 0.2 20 0.02 40-07 1.0 20 0.10 40-08 0.520 0.05 40-09 0.2 20 0.02 0.02 40-10 0.5 45 0.05 40-11 0.5 45 0.05

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

In addition to compositions 40-01 to 40-11 spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 orFC-754 at various concentrations. Formulations B and C alone wereapplied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 40b.

TABLE 40b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 49 100 300 66 92 500 80 76 700 93 96 FormulationC 200 57 79 400 93 98 600 100 100 800 100 100 Formulation B + 200 58 80Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 63 100 600 82 100 Formulation B + 200 37 49Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 67 84 600 74 100 Formulation B + 200 33 82Fluorad FC-135 0.02% 400 58 94 600 81 87 Formation B + 200 50 45 FluoradFC-754 0.1% 400 77 82 600 77 94 Formulation B + 200 44 45 Fluorad FC-7540.05% 400 71 65 600 74 90 Formulation B + 200 31 57 Fluorad FC-754 0.02%400 67 83 600 68 93 Formulation C + 200 69 65 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 400 9199 600 97 100 Formulation C + 200 73 87 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 400 89 100600 98 100 Formulation C + 200 51 60 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% 400 91 100 60098 100 Formulation C + 200 70 81 Fluorad FC-754 0.1% 400 85 99 600 98 95Formulation C + 200 68 54 Fluorad FC-754 0.05% 400 78 88 600 91 88Formulation C + 200 50 41 Fluorad FC-754 0.02% 400 89 91 600 99 10040-01 200 41 37 400 78 84 600 83 100 40-02 200 38 82 400 74 94 600 82 9840-03 200 38 62 400 69 85 600 86 100 40-04 200 63 69 400 79 75 600 93 8940-05 200 69 66 400 85 81 600 84 86 40-06 200 64 38 400 79 74 600 93 9940-07 200 61 43 400 76 71 600 85 85 40-08 200 71 52 400 82 85 600 82 10040-09 200 63 55 400 83 73 600 79 97 40-10 200 65 54 400 78 80 600 85 9940-11 200 55 33 400 77 74 600 91 97

There was a tendency, although not consistently so, for compositions ofthis Example containing Fluorad FC-754 to show slightly weakerherbicidal effectiveness than corresponding compositions containingFluorad FC-135.

Example 41

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 41a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 41a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MON compositiona.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 41-01 15.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-02 15.0 6.08.0 0.5 41-03 15.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-04 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-05 10.0 6.0 8.00.5 41-06 10.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-07 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-08 5.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-09 5.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-10 15.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-11 15.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-12 15.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-13 10.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-14 10.0 6.0 8.0 0.541-15 10.0 8.0 8.0 0.5 41-16 5.0 4.0 8.0 0.5 41-17 5.0 6.0 8.0 0.5 41-185.0 8.0 8.0 0.5

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 41-01 to 41-18, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and J with Fluorad FC-135 at twoconcentrations. Formulations B and J alone were applied as comparativetreatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, areshown in Table 41b.

TABLE 41b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 49 41 300 41 55 500 76 98 700 82 100 FormulationJ 150 59 66 300 79 99 500 93 99 700 98 100 Formulation B + 150 52 85Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 69 93 500 89 97 Formulation B + 150 9 61 FluoradFC-135 0.05% 300 71 77 500 77 100 Forrnulation J + 150 52 99 FluoradFC-135 0.1% 300 74 100 500 82 99 Formulation J + 150 41 52 FluoradFC-135 0.05% 300 77 83 500 91 100 41-01 150 66 51 300 86 91 500 93 10041-02 150 72 88 300 89 93 500 96 92 41-03 150 71 91 300 89 95 500 91 10041-04 150 63 90 300 89 89 500 96 99 41-05 150 70 79 300 84 94 500 88 9841-06 150 69 76 300 89 84 500 94 100 41-07 150 71 87 300 77 82 500 99 9241-08 150 81 87 300 88 94 500 92 98 41-09 150 72 83 300 87 83 500 94 9441-10 150 72 70 300 81 80 500 89 93 41-11 150 74 85 300 87 96 500 91 9841-12 150 66 92 300 78 98 500 93 100 41-13 150 71 76 300 86 95 500 94 9941-14 150 72 75 300 90 97 500 91 99 41-15 150 69 82 300 85 98 500 94 10041-16 150 76 87 300 86 100 500 90 99 41-17 150 71 83 300 87 94 500 96100 41-18 150 70 81 300 77 98 500 89 98

Good herbicidal effectiveness was obtained with the concentratecompositions of this Example containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135 orFluorad FC-754. No great or consistent difference was seen betweencompositions containing Fluorad FC-135 and their counterparts containingFluorad FC-754.

Example 42

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 42a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions. using soybean lecithin (95% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 42a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate MON Agrimul Fluorad Fluorad Westvacocomp. a.e. Lecithin 0818 PG-2069 FC-135 FC-754 H-240 42-01 30 3.0 0.253.0 9.0 42-02 30 3.0 0.25 1.0 9.0 42-03 30 3.0 0.25 3.0 9.0 42-04 30 1.00.50 3.0 9.0 42-05 30 1.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-06 30 1.0 1.0 9.0 42-07 30 1.00.25 1.0 9.0 42-08 30 3.0 0.50 2.0 9.0 42-09 30 2.0 3.0 9.0 42-10 30 3.05.0 42-11 30 3.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-12 30 2.0 0.38 2.0 9.0 42-13 30 1.00.25 1.0 9.0 42-14 30 3.0 0.50 3.0 9.0 42-15 15 6.0 2.00 8.3 42-16 156.0 4.00 8.3

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 42-01 to 42-16, spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and J with Fluorad FC-135 at twoconcentrations. Formulations B and J alone were applied as comparativetreatments. Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, areshown in Table 42b.

TABLE 42b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 3 33 300 12 90 500 65 98 700 79 100Formulation J 150 2 46 300 76 100 500 98 100 700 98 100 Formulation B +150 10 38 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 50 85 500 65 68 Formulation B + 150 327 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 36 82 500 68 99 Formulation J + 150 18 79Fluorad FC-135 0.1% 300 57 98 500 79 100 Formulation J + 150 2 37Fluorad FC-135 0.05% 300 56 97 500 96 98 42-01 150 2 27 300 2 74 500 4678 42-02 150 2 52 300 41 64 500 40 85 42-03 150 3 38 300 39 47 500 73 9842-04 150 3 38 300 42 63 500 78 84 42-05 150 5 29 300 37 89 500 70 9942-06 150 8 37 300 30 89 500 69 97 42-07 150 5 53 300 32 80 500 83 9942-08 150 3 26 300 10 40 500 12 55 42-09 150 7 21 300 57 86 500 91 9742-10 150 21 61 300 73 89 500 85 98 42-11 150 6 23 300 53 70 500 85 8342-12 150 33 25 300 34 43 500 83 97 42-13 150 7 34 300 62 39 500 77 7342-14 150 10 27 300 59 40 500 84 73 42-15 150 71 48 300 97 65 500 99 9242-16 150 83 40 300 98 89 500 100 95

The only concentrate compositions in this test exhibiting excellentperformance, at least on ABUTH, were 42-15 and 42-16.

Example 43

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 43a. Process (viii) wasfollowed for composition 43-02 and process (ix) for compositions 43-03to 43-13 which contain a colloidal particulate together with surfactant.Composition 43-01 contains colloidal particulate but no surfactant. ThepH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 43a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Emphos composition a.e.FC-135 Aerosil 90 PS-21A 43-01 20 3.3 43-02 20 3.3 43-03 31 1.1 3.3 1.143-04 31 1.1 3.3 2.2 43-05 31 1.1 3.3 3.3 43-06 31 2.2 3.3 1.1 43-07 312.2 3.3 2.2 43-08 31 2.2 3.3 3.3 43-09 31 3.3 3.3 1.1 43-10 31 3.3 3.32.2 43-11 31 3.3 3.3 3.3 43-12 31 3.3 3.3 43-13 31 3.3 3.3

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and 17 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 23 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 43b.

TABLE 43b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 8 250 18 25 350 35 40 450 75 50Formulation C 150 30 85 250 92 95 350 100 100 450 100 100 Formulation J150 40 70 250 70 83 350 93 92 450 100 98 43-01 150 20 25 250 35 30 35065 43 450 73 35 43-02 150 5 5 250 20 25 350 45 35 450 66 83 43-03 150 2011 250 40 30 350 73 64 450 88 83 43-04 150 15 3 250 30 25 350 40 35 45071 75 43-05 150 15 10 250 33 30 350 69 45 450 78 65 43-06 150 11 8 25028 30 350 30 35 450 69 61 43-07 150 5 8 250 13 20 350 51 30 450 74 4343-08 150 15 8 250 30 15 350 35 30 450 56 45 43-09 150 15 15 250 28 20350 43 33 450 45 40 43-10 150 5 3 250 25 20 350 50 40 450 48 58 43-11150 14 6 250 25 40 350 64 76 450 78 79 43-12 150 9 20 250 20 33 350 4673 450 59 80 43-13 150 15 11 250 20 28 350 30 59 450 68 48

Most concentrate compositions containing Fluorad FC-135 showed enhancedherbicidal effectiveness by comparison with Formulation B but did notequal the performance of commercial standard Formulations C and J underthe conditions of this test.

Example 44

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 44a. Process (viii) wasfollowed for compositions 44-01, 44-03, 44-06, 44-07, 44-10, 44-14,44-15, 44-18 and 44-19 process (ix) for compositions 44-02, 44-08,44-09, 44-16 and 44-17 which contain a colloidal particulate togetherwith surfactant. Compositions 44-04, 44-05, 44-12 and 44-13 containcolloidal particulate but no surfactant. The pH of all compositions wasapproximately 5.

TABLE 44a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Ethomeen AluminumTitanium composition a.e. FC-135 T/25 oxide C dioxide P25 Aerosol OT44-01 20 3.30 44-02 20 3.30 44-03 20 3.30 44-04 20 3.30 44-05 20 0.6744-06 20 3.30 3.30 44-07 20 3.30 0.67 44-08 20 3.30 3.30 44-09 20 0.673.30 44-10 20 3.30 3.30 44-11 20 3.30 0.67 44-12 20 3.30 44-13 20 0.6744-14 20 3.30 3.30 44-15 20 3.30 0.67 44-16 20 3.30 3.30 44-17 20 0.673.30 44-18 20 3.30 3.30 44-19 20 3.30 0.67

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 25 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment. are shown in Table 44b.

TABLE 44b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 8 45 250 37 55 350 40 60 450 50 70Formulation C 150 27 72 250 73 92 350 90 99 450 92 99 Formulation J 15025 66 250 45 88 350 78 99 450 91 100 44-01 150 40 82 250 55 93 350 74100 450 83 100 44-02 150 9 20 250 30 73 350 38 73 450 55 97 44-03 150 1323 250 35 79 350 45 78 450 75 100 44-04 150 18 45 250 35 65 350 35 70450 68 81 44-05 150 11 43 250 35 50 350 50 55 450 59 78 44-06 150 25 75250 58 93 350 88 100 450 95 100 44-07 150 15 88 250 68 100 350 79 100450 90 100 44-08 150 28 38 250 25 38 350 35 55 450 71 79 44-09 112 5 13224 23 48 336 25 70 448 45 64 44-10 150 1 20 250 40 74 350 65 55 450 8496 44-11 150 25 25 250 35 65 350 45 61 450 76 92 44-12 150 14 28 250 4043 350 45 70 450 65 79 44-13 150 20 45 250 48 33 350 60 55 450 80 7944-14 150 23 79 250 73 100 350 76 99 450 85 99 44-15 150 25 83 250 69 99350 75 99 450 91 100 44-16 150 14 28 250 23 40 350 30 79 450 69 86 44-17150 1 20 250 23 33 350 16 45 450 40 68 44-18 150 8 15 250 49 56 350 5558 450 83 83 44-19 150 6 15 250 35 60 350 61 63 450 63 70

Concentrate compositions containing Fluorad FC-135 showed enhancedherbicidal effectiveness by comparison with Formulation B but did notprovide herbicidal effectiveness equal to commercial standardFormulations C and J in this test.

Example 45

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 45a. Process (i) wasfollowed for compositions 45-10 to 45-12 and process (iii) forcompositions 45-01 to 45-09 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted to approximately 7.

TABLE 45a Spray % w/w composition Lecithin Fluorad FC-135 Surf H1 45-010.10 45-02 0.05 45-03 0.02 45-04 0.10 0.10 45-05 0.05 0.05 45-06 0.020.02 45-07 0.10 0.10 45-08 0.05 0.05 45-09 0.02 0.02 45-10 0.10 45-110.05 45-12 0.02

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 23 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

In addition to compositions 45-01 to 45-12. spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone and Formulation Jwere applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 45b.

TABLE 45b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 16 21 250 68 32 350 68 63 450 67 69 FormulationC 150 29 47 250 76 74 350 98 94 450 100 85 Formulation J 150 37 31 25079 72 350 93 82 450 97 97 Formulation B + 150 55 15 Fluorad FC-135 0.1%w/v 250 73 28 350 85 57 450 83 83 Formulation B + 150 59 15 FluoradFC-135 0.05% w/v 250 77 41 350 81 72 450 77 51 Formulation B + 150 25 12Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v 250 54 27 350 82 38 450 75 47 Formulation C +150 51 26 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v 250 78 63 350 86 71 450 89 79Formulation C + 150 58 23 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v 250 74 89 350 93 78450 89 91 45-01 150 29 26 250 61 47 350 73 48 450 82 62 45-02 150 34 34250 67 34 350 73 54 450 85 43 45-03 150 20 29 250 60 49 350 68 84 450 7464 45-04 150 78 24 250 83 33 350 96 64 450 97 59 45-05 150 81 21 250 8927 350 82 34 450 99 31 45-06 150 92 14 250 85 64 350 86 31 450 90 6045-07 150 71 27 250 81 46 350 84 66 450 88 62 45-08 150 46 29 250 70 43350 78 61 450 86 58 45-09 150 55 25 250 76 33 350 80 50 450 78 62 45-10150 65 26 250 85 28 350 91 37 450 89 53 45-11 150 73 27 250 77 28 350 9241 450 92 49 45-12 150 71 20 250 74 31 350 79 39 450 93 53

Extremely high herbicidal effectiveness was noted on ABUTH withcompositions 45-04 to 45-06, containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-135.Replacement of Fluorad FC-135 by “Surf H1”, a hydrocarbon-basedsurfactant of formula C₁₂H₂₅SO₂NH(CH₂)₃N⁺(CH₃)₃I⁻, gave (in compositions45-07 to 45-09) effectiveness on ABUTH still superior at low glyphosaterates to commercial standard Formulations C and J but not quite as greatas that of compositions 45-04 to 45-06. Performance of compositions45-04 to 45-12 on ECHCF was relatively low in this test but performanceon ABUTH was remarkably high considering the very low surfactantconcentrations present.

Example 46

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA ortetrabutylammonium salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 46a.Process (i) was followed for compositions 46-10 to 46-13 and 46-15 andprocess (iii) for compositions 46-01 to 46-09 using soybean lecithin(45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was adjusted toapproximately 7.

TABLE 46a % w/w Spray Fluorad Glyphosate composition Lecithin LI-700FC-135 Surf H1 salt 46-01 0.10 IPA 46-02 0.05 IPA 46-03 0.02 IPA 46-040.10 0.10 IPA 46-05 0.05 0.05 IPA 46-06 0.02 0.02 IPA 46-07 0.10 0.10IPA 46-08 0.05 0.05 IPA 46-09 0.02 0.02 IPA 46-10 0.10 IPA 46-11 0.05IPA 46-12 0.02 IPA 46-13 (BU)₄N 46-14 0.05 0.05 (BU)₄N 46-15 0.05 (BU)₄N

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 21 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

In addition to compositions 46-01 to 46-15. spray compositions wereprepared by tank mixing Formulations B and C with Fluorad FC-135 atvarious concentrations. Formulations B and C alone and Formulation Jwere applied as comparative treatments. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 46b.

TABLE 46b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 33 24 300 51 27 500 68 36 700 83 43 FormulationC 150 32 30 300 78 68 500 90 81 700 96 89 Formulation J 150 16 27 300 7456 500 88 79 700 93 92 Formulation B + 150 22 18 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v300 71 26 500 73 51 Formulation B + 150 19 16 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v300 60 28 500 72 33 Formulation B + 150 14 14 Fluorad FC-135 0.02% w/v300 23 26 500 69 38 Formulation C + 150 31 11 Fluorad FC-135 0.1% w/v300 73 27 500 82 48 Formulation C + 150 43 23 Fluorad FC-135 0.05% w/v300 71 49 500 93 50 46-01 150 20 18 300 65 29 500 85 34 46-02 150 22 19300 63 35 500 83 51 46-03 150 24 29 300 64 35 500 85 40 46-04 150 63 21300 75 31 500 84 46 46-05 150 68 10 300 82 29 500 81 53 46-06 150 68 21300 84 30 500 85 46 46-07 150 41 35 300 51 39 500 93 61 46-08 150 34 22300 77 27 500 85 35 46-09 150 24 17 300 78 39 500 91 58 46-10 150 16 19300 62 28 500 72 53 46-11 150 38 25 300 59 38 500 82 59 46-12 150 7 23300 61 40 500 77 63 46-13 150 81 48 300 92 51 500 90 46 46-14 150 87 30300 91 69 500 95 89 46-15 150 81 37 300 94 41 500 92 63

As in the previous Example. compositions containing “Surf H1” did notshow as strong enhancement of glyphosate effectiveness as counterpartcompositions containing Fluorad FC-135. The tetrabutylammonium salt ofglyphosate (compositions 46-13 to 46-15) exhibited extremely highherbicidal effectiveness in this test.

EXAMPLE 47

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 47a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti), except that various orders of addition were tried as indicatedbelow. The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 47a % w/w Order of Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MONAgrimul addition composition a.e. Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 0818 PG-2069(*) 47-01 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 A 47-02 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 B 47-03 30 3.0 3.00.75 C 47-04 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 D 47-05 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 E 47-06 30 3.0 3.00.75 F 47-07 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 A 47-08 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 B 47-09 30 3.0 3.00.75 C 47-10 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 D 47-11 30 3.0 3.0 0.75 E 47-12 30 3.0 3.00.75 F 47-13 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 A 47-14 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 B 47-15 30 3.0 3.00.5 C 47-16 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 D 47-17 30 3.0 3.0 0.5 E 47-18 30 3.0 3.0 0.5F (*) Order of addition: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th A lecithin MON/PGFC-135/754 water glyphosate B lecithin FC-135 MON/PG water glyphosate Cglyphosate water FC-135/754 MON/PG lecithin D glyphosate water MON/PGFC-135/754 lecithin E glyphosate lecithin MON/PG FC-135/754 water Fglyphosate lecithin FC-135/754 MON/PG water MON/PG means MON 0818 orAgrimul PG-2069

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 15 days after planting ABUTH and 18 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 47b.

TABLE 47b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 150 26 69 300 75 100 500 85 99 700 94 100Formulation J 150 38 78 300 76 87 500 87 100 700 90 100 47-01 150 10 35300 51 56 500 71 91 700 77 100 47-02 150 24 35 300 57 71 500 77 93 70094 100 47-03 150 11 33 300 48 55 500 73 87 700 83 93 47-04 150 37 36 30050 38 500 68 94 47-05 150 24 32 300 48 47 500 77 85 700 76 100 47-06 15012 32 300 61 40 500 83 86 700 88 95 47-07 150 17 25 300 58 77 500 73 97700 86 81 47-08 150 12 34 300 53 47 500 69 72 700 79 100 47-09 150 10 33300 47 70 500 67 99 700 83 81 47-10 150 13 25 300 49 51 500 70 73 700 8592 47-11 150 10 22 300 56 37 500 77 47 700 85 85 47-12 150 13 27 300 6168 500 78 52 700 86 85 47-13 150 14 27 300 62 35 500 72 46 700 87 6747-14 150 15 27 300 59 37 500 76 63 700 85 61 47-15 150 10 25 300 40 46500 72 88 700 79 51 47-16 150 12 27 300 53 41 500 63 49 700 71 85 47-17150 23 25 300 59 35 500 70 79 700 75 86 47-18 150 10 27 300 56 39 500 6957 700 74 93

No great or consistent differences in herbicidal effectiveness were seenwith different orders of addition of ingredients.

Example 48

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 48a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). Order of addition of ingredients was varied as indicated below.The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 48a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad MON Order of compositiona.e. Lecithin FC-135 0818 addition (*) 48-01 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 A 48-02 206.0 6.0 2.0 B 48-03 20 6.0 6.0 2.0 C 48-04 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 A 48-05 20 6.03.0 2.0 B 48-06 20 6.0 3.0 2.0 C 48-07 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 A 48-08 20 6.0 1.02.0 B 48-09 20 6.0 1.0 2.0 C 48-10 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 A 48-11 20 6.0 0.0 2.0B 48-12 20 6.0 0.0 2.0 C 48-13 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 A 48-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 B48-15 20 2.0 2.0 0.5 C (*) Order of addition: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Alecithin MON 0818 FC-135 water glyphosate B lecithin MON 0818 waterFC-135 glyphosate C lecithin water MON 0818 FC-135 glyphosate

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and 16 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 48b.

TABLE 48b Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 0 3 200 17 28 300 38 37 500 78 68Formulation C 100 8 63 200 43 96 300 88 96 500 99 98 Formulation J 10012 10 200 35 60 300 85 90 500 98 92 48-01 100 10 0 200 38 13 300 73 28500 90 75 48-02 100 8 0 200 40 23 300 87 43 500 98 62 48-03 100 12 0 20040 25 300 83 47 500 95 73 48-04 100 5 5 200 45 38 300 83 65 500 98 8348-05 100 10 3 200 42 48 300 82 53 500 97 91 48-06 100 28 0 200 67 43300 85 68 500 97 93 48-07 100 8 8 200 37 35 300 75 72 500 97 90 48-08100 0 1 200 37 45 300 57 68 500 96 97 48-09 100 0 7 200 35 40 300 78 60500 96 93 48-10 100 0 3 200 33 57 300 82 72 500 96 94 48-11 100 0 5 20035 50 300 78 82 500 97 87 48-12 100 3 5 200 40 37 300 77 78 500 97 8548-13 100 3 0 200 45 33 300 83 38 500 95 75 48-14 100 0 0 200 43 33 30077 50 500 96 68 48-15 100 0 0 200 42 30 300 78 47 500 88 73

No great or consistent differences were seen with different orders ofaddition of ingredients.

Example 49

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 49a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 49a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad composition a.e.Lecithin FC-135 FC-754 MON 0818 49-01 15 4.0 8.0 0.5 49-02 15 6.0 8.00.5 49-03 15 8.0 8.0 0.5 49-04 10 4.0 8.0 0.5 49-05 10 6.0 8.0 0.5 49-0610 8.0 8.0 0.5 49-07 15 4.0 8.00 0.5 49-08 15 6.0 8.00 0.5 49-09 15 8.08.00 0.5 49-10 15 6.0 8.25 0.5 49-11 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 49-12 15 8.0 4.004.0 0.5 49-13 10 8.0 8.00 0.5 49-14 10 8.0 4.00 4.0 0.5

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 22 days after planting ABUTH and 23 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 49b.

TABLE 49b Concentrate Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 20 250 17 37 350 47 47 450 53 60Formulation J 150 27 38 250 68 80 350 78 95 450 87 95 49-01 150 15 30250 78 68 350 97 87 450 97 78 49-02 150 47 30 250 92 80 350 97 97 450 9885 49-03 150 30 35 250 83 45 350 97 57 450 97 67 49-04 150 47 32 250 8057 350 95 87 450 97 96 49-05 150 32 30 250 81 89 350 94 95 450 98 9449-06 150 60 28 250 80 96 350 92 95 450 98 96 49-07 150 50 23 250 70 72350 92 78 450 97 60 49-08 150 45 40 250 72 72 350 90 89 450 97 77 49-09150 53 25 250 80 78 350 89 89 450 96 93 49-10 150 72 48 250 89 83 350 9895 450 98 80 49-11 150 50 27 250 77 63 350 93 83 450 97 72 49-12 150 5215 250 83 57 350 94 68 450 98 63 49-13 #50 50 30 250 75 32 350 88 84 45097 77 49-14 150 67 23 250 84 77 350 97 73 450 97 72

In this test compositions prepared with Fluorad FC-754 tended to providegreater herbicidal effectiveness on ECHCF than their counterpartsprepared with Fluorad FC-135.

Example 50

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 50a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 50a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Leci- Fluorad Fluorad MON Iso-composition a.e. thin FC-135 FC-754 0818 propanol 50-01 15 6.0 8.25 4.050-02 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 50-03 10 8.0 8.00 0.5 50-04 10 8.0 8.00 0.5 50-0520 2.0 2.00 0.5 50-06 20 2.0 2.00 0.5 50-07 30 3.0 3.00 0.5 50-08 30 3.03.00 0.5 50-09 30 1.0 1.00 0.5 50-10 30 1.0 1.00 0.5 50-11 15 6.0 8.254.0 5.0 50-12 15 6.0 8.25 4.0 5.0 50-13 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 5.0 50-14 10 8.08.00 2.0 5.0 50-15 30 3.0 3.00 0.8 50-16 30 3.0 3.00 0.8 50-17 10 8.08.00 2.0 7.5 50-18 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 7.5 50-19 10 8.0 8.00 2.0 10.0 50-2010 8.0 8.00 2.0 10.0 50-21 10 8.0 8.00 4.0 5.0 50-22 10 8.0 8.00 4.0 5.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 50b.

TABLE 50b Concentrate Glyphosate rate % lnhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 2 22 250 25 28 350 63 38 450 70 58Formulation C 150 30 47 250 75 82 350 97 97 450 100 99 Formulation J 15010 43 250 58 88 350 87 96 450 98 93 50-01 150 63 15 250 78 32 350 83 7050-02 150 60 28 250 80 32 350 88 65 50-03 150 53 37 250 80 42 350 91 2750-04 150 72 18 250 83 50 350 96 80 50-05 150 50 2 250 77 25 350 78 4350-06 150 22 25 250 77 27 350 87 40 50-07 150 27 20 250 58 32 350 87 3750-08 150 32 3 250 78 30 350 82 52 50-09 150 5 0 250 42 28 350 68 4350-10 150 2 23 250 52 28 350 75 42 50-11 150 72 27 250 80 42 350 85 7350-12 150 58 23 250 82 58 350 87 97 50-13 150 70 8 250 83 38 350 85 4550-14 150 68 37 250 90 27 350 89 67 50-15 150 28 28 250 63 40 350 87 3550-16 150 23 13 250 45 48 350 82 68 50-17 150 67 2 250 88 30 350 87 5850-18 150 60 38 250 85 22 350 95 53 50-19 150 74 38 250 80 47 350 95 2850-20 150 70 25 250 85 70 350 97 81 50-21 150 78 5 250 83 50 350 90 8350-22 150 73 33 250 82 33 350 95 83

Concentrate compositions having a high (20-30% a.e.) loading ofglyphosate and consequently a relatively low loading of excipientsshowed enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness over that obtained withFormulation B, but in this test did not provide efficacy equal tocommercial standard Formulations C and J.

Example 51

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 51a. Process (i) wasfollowed for compositions 51-13 to 51-20 and process (v) forcompositions 51-01 to 51-12 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). Compositions were stored in different conditions as indicatedbelow before testing for herbicidal effectiveness. The pH of allcompositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 51a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad Fluorad MON Storagecomposition a.e. Lecithin LI-700 FC-135 FC-754 0818 conditions 51-0120.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 60° C., 4d 51-02 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 60° C., 4d 51-0320.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 −10° C., 4d  51-04 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 −10° C., 4d  5I-0520.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 room temperature, 4d 51-06 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 roomtemperature, 4d 51-07 20.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 60° C., 8 h then −10° C., 4d51-08 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 60° C., 8 h then −10° C., 4d 51-09 20.0 2.0 2.00.5 freshly made 51-10 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 freshly made 51-11 20.0 2.0 2.00.5 room temperature, 42 d 51-12 15.0 6.0 8.25 4.0 room temperature, 42d 51-13 15.0 18.25 51-14 20.0 4.50 51-15 15.0 14.25 4.0 51-16 20.0 4.000.5 51-17 15.0 10.00 8.25 51-18 20.0 2.50 2.0 51-19 15.0 6.00 8.25 4.051-20 20.0 2.00 2.00 0.5

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and 18 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 51b.

TABLE 51b Spray Glyphosate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 27 30 250 37 38 350 60 42 450 69 45 FormulationJ 150 45 61 250 81 92 350 93 97 450 96 97 51-01 150 45 25 250 49 41 35066 47 450 75 63 51-02 150 49 65 250 74 67 350 83 88 450 92 87 51-03 15032 25 250 71 70 350 75 65 450 77 67 51-04 150 54 68 250 82 82 350 91 95450 87 96 51-05 150 39 52 250 63 65 350 83 90 450 85 93 51-06 150 67 81250 89 97 350 94 100 450 96 100 51-07 150 39 52 250 60 88 350 87 94 45085 96 51-08 150 54 82 250 87 98 350 93 100 450 92 100 51-09 150 45 53250 67 88 350 84 89 450 93 93 51-10 150 56 63 250 86 97 350 94 99 450 9298 51-11 150 48 40 250 69 55 350 74 91 51-12 150 60 41 250 86 91 350 9598 51-13 150 30 44 250 37 76 350 59 94 51-14 150 0 40 250 49 55 350 5985 51-15 150 42 61 250 71 90 350 83 97 51-16 150 27 42 250 49 58 350 6186 51-17 150 37 45 250 52 70 350 76 60 51-18 150 28 32 250 53 77 350 7071 51-19 150 47 36 250 69 97 350 83 89 51-20 150 26 20 250 56 74 350 6282

No great or consistent effect of storage conditions on herbicidaleffectiveness of compositions was seen in this test.

Example 52

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 52a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 52a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Fluorad MON compositiona.e. Lecithin stearate FC-754 0818 Ethomeen T/25 Ethanol 52-01 20 2.00.5 1.25 1.0 52-02 20 2.0 0.5 1.00 1.00 1.0 52-03 20 2.0 0.5 1.25 1.052-04 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 52-05 20 6.0 1.5 2.00 2.00 2.0 52-06 20 6.01.5 3.00 3.0 52-07 20 2.0 0.5 0.50 52-08 20 2.0 0.5 2.50 52-09 20 2.00.5 1.25 1.25 52-10 20 6.0 1.5 0.50 52-11 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 52-12 20 6.01.5 6.00 52-13 20 6.0 1.5 3.00 3.00 52-14 20 2.0 2.0 0.50 52-15 20 6.03.0 6.00 52-16 20 6.0 6.0 6.00

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulation J was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averagedfor all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 52b.

TABLE 52b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation J 150 38 45 250 80 63 350 78 82 450 75 55 52-01150 23 27 250 57 53 350 70 85 450 70 83 52-02 150 7 25 250 52 45 350 8288 450 82 90 52-03 150 38 35 250 50 40 350 82 92 450 83 93 52-04 150 4048 250 73 75 350 78 92 450 88 92 52-05 150 50 53 250 68 80 350 85 98 45089 96 52-06 150 50 43 250 55 80 350 78 97 450 85 91 52-07 150 3 28 25022 43 350 67 72 450 73 75 52-08 150 43 33 250 77 63 350 89 78 450 97 8552-09 150 57 27 250 95 63 350 89 86 450 98 88 52-10 150 32 23 250 33 55350 73 82 450 67 60 52-11 150 45 32 250 78 72 350 95 92 450 98 96 52-12150 67 42 250 80 75 350 96 88 450 97 90 52-13 150 73 42 250 83 77 350 9691 450 98 88 52-14 150 57 30 250 77 72 350 84 80 450 96 75 52-15 150 7238 250 88 82 350 98 92 450 98 87 52-16 150 85 49 250 97 47 350 97 83 45098 85

Very high herbicidal effectiveness was obtained in this test withconcentrate compositions containing lecithin and Fluorad FC-754.Composition 52-14, containing each of these excipients at the very lowweight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e. of 1:10, was at least aseffective as commercial standard Formulation J, while compositions 52-15and 52-16 were still more effective. Also performing very well in thistest, particularly on ECHCF, were a number of concentrate compositionscontaining lecithin and butyl stearate.

Example 53

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 53a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all compositions using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti). Order of addition of ingredients was varied for certaincompositions as indicated below. The pH of all compositions wasapproximately 5.

TABLE 53a % w/w Order of Concentrate Glyphosate Fluorad BenzalkoniumButyl MON addition composition g/l a.e. Lecithin FC-754/135 Cl stearate0818 (*) 53-01 345 4.0 0.66 53-02 345 4.0 1.00 53-03 347 3.0 3.00 53-04347 4.0 4.00 53-05 347 4.0 5.00 53-06 345 4.6 4.60 53-07 348 4.0 2.0(754) 1.10 53-08 351 4.0 4.0 (754) 1.00 A 53-09 346 3.9 4.2 (754) 1.00 B53-10 350 4.0 2.0 (135) 1.10 53-11 352 4.0 4.0 (135) 1.00 A 53-12 3494.0 4.0 (135) 1.00 B 53-13 348 4.0 4.0 (754) 0.50 0.57 53-14 347 4.00.50 0.52 53-15 348 3.7 0.48 3.7 53-16 348 4.0 0.58 4.0 (*) Order ofaddition: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th A lecithin water Benzalkonium ClFC-135/754 glyphosate B glyphosate FC-135/754 Benzalkonium Cl waterglyphosate

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 53b.

TABLE 53b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 5 5 200 15 20 300 47 30 400 65 37Formulation J 100 0 8 200 70 37 300 78 70 400 83 73 53-01 100 3 10 20017 27 300 45 37 400 75 40 53-02 100 2 5 200 13 30 300 43 40 400 75 4753-03 100 0 8 200 17 43 300 65 78 400 78 83 53-04 100 2 10 200 30 37 30068 72 400 75 88 53-05 100 2 20 200 25 65 300 63 88 400 82 83 53-06 10010 17 200 25 33 300 47 77 400 83 75 53-07 100 0 10 200 48 30 300 73 37400 83 43 53-08 100 3 10 200 33 30 300 68 37 400 78 40 53-09 100 5 10200 40 27 300 65 50 400 70 57 53-10 100 0 10 200 30 27 300 67 40 400 7340 53-11 100 0 10 200 33 27 300 52 37 400 82 40 53-12 100 0 10 200 40 20300 65 40 400 72 40 53-13 100 0 10 200 40 20 300 60 33 400 78 33 53-14100 0 10 200 7 47 300 28 33 400 43 43 53-15 100 0 13 200 27 33 300 73 53400 77 67 53-16 100 0 13 200 30 37 300 75 47 400 77 68

Most concentrate compositions of this Example showed enhanced glyphosateeffectiveness by comparison with Formulation B but did not equal theefficacy of commercial standard Formulation J in this test.

Example 54

Aqueous spray and concentrate compositions were prepared containingglyphosate IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 54a.Process (i) was followed for spray compositions 54-37 to 54-60 andprocess (iii) for spray compositions 54-01 to 54-36 using soybeanlecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Process (v) was followed forconcentrate compositions 54-61 to 54-63 using soybean lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 54a Glyphosate % w/w Type of Composition g a.e./l LecithinFluoro-organic fluoro-organic Spray composition 54-01 1.60 0.027 0.027Fluorad FC-754 54-02 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-754 54-03 3.72 0.0620.062 Fluorad FC-754 54-04 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-754 54-05 1.600.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-750 54-06 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-750 54-073.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-750 54-08 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-75054-09 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-751 54-10 2.66 0.045 0.045 FluoradFC-751 54-11 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-751 54-12 4.79 0.080 0.080Fluorad FC-751 54-13 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-760 54-14 2.66 0.0450.045 Fluorad FC-760 54-15 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-760 54-16 4.790.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-760 54-17 1.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-120 54-182.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-120 54-19 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-12054-20 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-120 54-21 1.60 0.027 0.027 FluoradFC-171 54-22 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-171 54-23 3.72 0.062 0.062Fluorad FC-171 54-24 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-171 54-25 1.60 0.0270.027 Fluorad FC-129 54-26 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-129 54-27 3.720.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-129 54-28 4.79 0.080 0.080 Fluorad FC-129 54-291.60 0.027 0.027 Fluorad FC-170C 54-30 2.66 0.045 0.045 Fluorad FC-170C54-31 3.72 0.062 0.062 Fluorad FC-170C 54-32 4.79 0.080 0.080 FluoradFC-170C 54-33 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-754 54-34 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-75454-35 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-754 54-36 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-754 54-371.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-750 54-38 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-750 54-39 3.720.062 Fluorad FC-750 54-40 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-750 54-41 1.60 0.027Fluorad FC-760 54-42 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-760 54-43 3.72 0.062 FluoradFC-760 54-44 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-760 54-45 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-12054-46 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-120 54-47 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-120 54-484.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-120 54-49 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-171 54-50 2.660.045 Fluorad FC-171 54-51 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-171 54-52 4.79 0.080Fluorad FC-171 54-53 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-129 54-54 2.66 0.045 FluoradFC-129 54-55 3.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-129 54-56 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-12954-57 1.60 0.027 Fluorad FC-170C 54-58 2.66 0.045 Fluorad FC-170C 54-593.72 0.062 Fluorad FC-170C 54-60 4.79 0.080 Fluorad FC-170C Concentratecompositions: 54-61 180 1.5 1.5 Fluorad FC-754 54-62 180 2.5 2.5 FluoradFC-754 54-63 180 3.0 6.0 Fluorad FC-754

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 54b.

TABLE 54b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray or concentrate compositiong a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 47 88 250 68 96 350 86 98 450 93100 Formulation J 150 68 89 250 94 97 350 98 100 450 100 99 54-01 150 9483 54-02 250 97 99 54-03 350 97 99 54-04 450 99 100 54-05 150 93 7754-06 250 94 96 54-07 350 97 94 54-08 450 98 99 54-09 150 53 72 54-10250 68 86 54-11 350 73 99 54-12 450 91 96 54-13 150 58 70 54-14 250 7294 54-15 350 89 95 54-16 450 93 92 54-17 150 50 62 54-18 250 58 78 54-19350 85 93 54-20 450 84 96 54-21 150 53 63 54-22 250 83 85 54-23 350 8990 54-24 450 96 86 54-25 150 53 57 54-26 250 78 85 54-27 350 90 91 54-28450 96 93 54-29 150 62 70 54-30 250 84 92 54-31 350 97 97 54-32 450 9798 54-33 150 94 79 54-34 250 96 97 54-35 350 97 99 54-36 450 98 99 54-37150 90 84 54-38 250 99 96 54-39 350 98 100 54-40 450 99 100 54-41 150 6875 54-42 250 73 88 54-43 350 83 92 54-44 450 92 98 54-45 150 48 53 54-46250 60 88 54-47 350 82 97 54-48 450 95 95 54-49 150 50 47 54-50 250 6389 54-51 350 83 91 54-52 450 91 90 54-53 150 48 52 54-54 250 63 75 54-55350 91 92 54-56 450 97 97 54-57 150 50 83 54-58 250 73 94 54-59 350 9198 54-60 450 94 98 54-61 150 63 52 250 96 96 350 97 96 54-62 150 77 77250 93 87 350 98 98 54-63 150 83 89 250 96 96 350 98 98

Outstanding herbicidal efficacy, even by comparison with Formulation J,was obtained in this test from spray compositions containing lecithinand Fluorad FC-754 (54-01 to 54-04). Substitution of otherfluoro-organic surfactants for Fluorad FC-754 gave varying results.Fluorad FC-750 (compositions 54-05 to 54-08) was an acceptablesubstitute; however Fluorad FC-751, Fluorad FC-760, Fluorad FC-120,Fluorad FC-171, Fluorad FC-129 and Fluorad FC-170C (compositions 54-09to 54-32) provided less enhancement. A similar pattern was seen withspray compositions (54-33 to 54-60) containing the same fluoro-organicsurfactants as above with the exception of Fluorad FC-751, but nolecithin. It is noteworthy that of all the fluoro-organic surfactantsincluded in this test, only Fluorad FC-754 and Fluorad FC-750 arecationic. Excellent herbicidal efficacy was also noted in this test fromconcentrate glyphosate compositions containing lecithin and FluoradFC-754, especially composition 54-63.

Example 55

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 55a. Concentratecompositions 55-01 to 55-07, 55-17 and 55-18 were prepared by process(v). Concentrate compositions 55-08 to 55-15 were prepared by process(x). The other concentrate compositions of this Example were includedfor comparison purposes.

TABLE 55a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Fluorad Butyl Ethomeen Arcosolve comp.g a.e./l Lecithin FC-754 stearate T/25 Ceteareth-20 DPM Ceteareth-2755-01 348 3.0 3.00 0.75 55-02 348 3.8 3.75 5.00 55-03 348 3.8 3.75 7.5055-04 348 2.0 5.00 0.75 55-05 348 5.0 5.00 0.75 55-06 348 2.0 2.00 55-07348 1.0 1.00 55-08 220 1.5 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-09 220 1.5 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-10220 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.0 55-11 220 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.0 55-12 220 3.0 1.5 3.003.0 55-13 220 3.0 1.5 3.00 3.0 55-14 348 1.5 1.5 6.00 3.0 55-15 348 3.01.5 3.00 3.0 55-16 348 3.00 55-17 348 3.0 3.0 55-18 348 5.0 13.00 5.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 55b.

TABLE 55b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 28 32 200 41 37 300 73 64 400 22 30Formulation J 100 38 32 200 82 73 300 89 91 400 97 89 55-01 100 73 28200 90 66 300 97 92 400 100 96 55-02 100 77 32 200 87 67 300 84 78 40098 84 55-03 100 79 33 200 82 66 300 99 81 400 97 88 55-04 100 69 35 20095 59 300 96 84 400 92 91 55-05 100 82 32 200 92 55 300 96 71 400 94 8755-06 100 83 33 200 100 52 300 100 68 400 99 75 55-07 100 77 35 200 9058 300 95 71 400 94 90 55-08 100 51 40 200 89 75 300 96 92 400 95 9855-09 100 76 57 200 98 81 300 97 86 400 96 98 55-10 100 69 60 200 98 63300 95 82 400 99 90 55-11 100 61 60 200 94 84 300 97 89 400 99 97 55-12100 64 53 200 95 82 300 96 90 400 95 98 55-13 100 61 58 200 94 78 300 8887 400 100 94 55-14 100 56 61 200 88 77 300 91 82 400 97 89 55-15 100 4252 200 82 80 300 86 90 400 97 92 55-16 100 64 49 200 86 75 300 97 88 400100 82 55-17 100 57 32 200 88 66 300 95 73 400 100 88 55-18 100 52 35200 70 77 300 82 79 400 97 73

Concentrate compositions 55-01 to 55-07, containing lecithin and FluoradFC-754, exhibited potstanding herbicidal effectiveness. On ABUTH,several of these were about as effective at 100 g a.e./ha as commercialstandard Formulation J at 200 g a.e./ha. On ECHCF, all exhibited strongenhancement over Formulation B but most did not equal Formulation J onthis species. The performance of composition 55-07, containing lecithinand Fluorad FC-754 each at the extremely low weight/weight ratio toglyphosate a.e. of about 1:30, was remarkably high. The inclusion of arelatively high concentration of Ethomeen T/25, as in compositions 55-02and 55-03, was not helpful to herbicidal effectiveness in the presenceof lecithin and Fluorad FC-754, and may even have been detrimental. Therelatively poor performance of composition 55-18, having a high EthomeenT/25 concentration but in this case no Fluorad FC-754, is consistentwith this observation. Without being bound by theory, it is believedthat the presence of such high concentrations of Ethomeen T/25 togetherwith lecithin results in the formation of mixed micelles rather thanliposomes in aqueous dispersion. Composition 55-16, containing FluoradFC-754 at a weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e. of about 1:10, but IIno lecithin, exhibited herbicidal effectiveness similar to that ofcomposition 55-01, suggesting that under the conditions of this test alarge part of the enhancement due to the lecithin/Fluorad FC-754combination was attributable to the Fluorad FC-754 component.

Compositions 55-08 to 55-15, containing lecithin, butyl stearate,Ethomeen T/25 and a C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylether surfactant (ceteareth-20 orceteareth-27) exhibited a very high degree of herbicidal effectiveness.Not only was performance, at least of 55-08 to 55-13, on ABUTHsubstantially better than that of Formulation J, these compositionsperformed considerably better than Formulation J on ECHCF as well.

Example 56

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 56a. Process (i) wasfollowed for compositions 56-61 to 56-64, 56-67, 56-69 and 56-71 andprocess (iii) for compositions 56-01 to 56-60, 56-66, 56-68, 56-70 and56-72 using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of allcompositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 56a % w/w Spray MON Fluorad Ethomeen Ethomeen composition Lecithin0818 FC-754 T/25 C/12 56-01 0.020 0.025 0.02 56-02 0.030 0.025 0.0256-03 0.050 0.025 0.02 56-04 0.020 0.025 0.03 56-05 0.030 0.025 0.0356-06 0.050 0.025 0.03 56-07 0.020 0.025 0.04 56-08 0.030 0.025 0.0456-09 0.050 0.025 0.04 56-10 0.020 0.025 0.05 56-11 0.030 0.025 0.0556-12 0.050 0.025 0.05 56-13 0.020 0.02 56-14 0.030 0.02 56-15 0.0500.02 56-16 0.020 0.03 56-17 0.030 0.03 56-18 0.050 0.03 56-19 0.020 0.0456-20 0.030 0.04 56-21 0.050 0.04 56-22 0.020 0.05 56-23 0.030 0.0556-24 0.050 0.05 56-25 0.020 0.02 0.025 56-26 0.030 0.02 0.025 56-270.050 0.02 0.025 56-28 0.020 0.03 0.025 56-29 0.030 0.03 0.025 56-300.050 0.03 0.025 56-31 0.020 0.04 0.025 56-32 0.030 0.04 0.025 56-330.050 0.04 0.025 56-34 0.020 0.05 0.025 56-35 0.030 0.05 0.025 56-360.050 0.05 0.025 56-37 0.020 0.02 0.025 56-38 0.030 0.02 0.025 56-390.050 0.02 0.025 56-40 0.020 0.03 0.025 56-41 0.030 0.03 0.025 56-420.050 0.03 0.025 56-43 0.020 0.04 0.025 56-44 0.030 0.04 0.025 56-450.050 0.04 0.025 56-46 0.020 0.05 0.025 56-47 0.030 0.05 0.025 56-480.050 0.05 0.025 56-49 0.020 0.02 0.050 56-50 0.025 0.03 0.050 56-510.050 0.02 0.050 56-52 0.020 0.03 0.050 56-53 0.030 0.03 0.050 56-540.050 0.03 0.050 56-55 0.020 0.050 0.02 56-56 0.025 0.050 0.03 56-570.050 0.050 0.02 56-58 0.020 0.050 0.03 56-59 0.030 0.050 0.03 56-600.050 0.050 0.03 56-61 0.050 56-62 0.050 56-63 0.025 56-64 0.025 56-650.050 0.08 0.025 56-66 0.025 0.03 0.025 56-67 0.05 56-68 0.050 56-690.05 0.050 56-70 0.050 0.050 56-71 0.050 0.05 56-72 0.050 0.050

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulation J was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averagedfor all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 56b.

TABLE 56b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation J 100 14 42 187 44 87 300 71 90 400 92 97 56-01 187 8080 56-02 187 80 97 56-03 187 79 94 56-04 187 79 91 56-05 187 81 80 56-06187 73 88 56-07 187 86 90 56-08 187 88 91 56-09 187 77 85 56-10 187 8180 56-11 187 88 68 56-12 187 87 72 56-13 187 85 61 56-14 187 83 47 56-15187 86 61 56-16 187 86 57 56-17 187 85 44 56-18 187 81 62 56-19 187 8263 56-20 187 87 62 56-21 187 84 48 56-22 187 80 67 56-23 187 86 89 56-24187 78 64 56-25 187 84 87 56-26 187 81 81 56-27 187 74 85 56-28 187 7190 56-29 187 76 74 56-30 187 81 89 56-31 187 78 80 56-32 187 79 84 56-33187 82 84 56-34 187 74 87 56-35 187 81 89 56-36 187 85 79 56-37 187 6889 56-38 187 69 85 56-39 187 86 85 56-40 187 83 89 56-41 187 77 76 56-42187 83 76 56-43 187 74 83 56-44 187 84 69 56-45 187 85 71 56-46 187 8086 56-47 187 83 96 56-48 187 81 87 56-49 187 75 99 56-50 187 78 97 56-51187 76 97 56-52 187 77 92 56-53 187 74 88 56-54 187 73 81 56-55 187 7087 56-56 187 79 88 56-57 187 72 89 56-58 187 72 79 56-59 187 53 80 56-60187 80 73 56-61 187 46 78 56-62 187 54 94 56-63 187 48 98 56-64 187 5997 56-65 187 87 84 56-66 187 89 96 56-67 187 86 69 56-68 187 46 43 56-69187 75 90 56-70 187 55 83 56-71 187 79 80 56-72 187 55 82

All compositions of this Example containing Fluorad FC-754 showed muchgreater herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH at 187 g a.e./ha than didFormulation J at the same rate, in many cases giving inhibition of ABUTHequal to or greater than provided by Formulation J at 300 g a.e./ha. Theonly compositions of the Example not showing strong improvement overFormulation J on ABUTH were 56-61 to 56-64, 56-68, 56-70 and 56-72.These are the only formulations of the Example not containing FluoradFC-754.

Example 57

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 57a. Process (i) wasfollowed for compositions 57-02, 57-04, 57-06, 57-08, 57-10, 57-12,57-14 and 57-16 to 57-18, and process (iii) for compositions 57-01,57-03, 57-05, 57-07, 57-09, 57-11 and 57-13 using soybean lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 57a Spray % w/w composition Lecithin Surfactant Type of surfactant57-01 0.05 0.05 Surf H2 57-02 0.05 Surf H2 57-03 0.05 0.05 Surf H3 57-040.05 Surf H3 57-05 0.05 0.05 Surf H4 57-06 0.05 Surf H4 57-07 0.05 0.05Surf H5 57-08 0.05 Surf H5 57-09 0.05 0.05 Fluorad FC-754 57-10 0.05Fluorad FC-754 57-11 0.05 0.05 Surf H1 57-12 0.05 Surf H1 57-13 0.050.05 MON 0818 57-14 0.05 MON 0818 57-15 0.05 0.05 Ethomeen T/25 57-160.05 Ethomeen T/25 57-17 0.10 MON 0818 57-18 0.10 Ethomeen T/25

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF. and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 57b.

TABLE 57b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 100 12 22 200 43 43 300 63 78 400 75 82 FormulationJ 100 47 27 200 89 83 300 98 98 400 99 97 57-01 100 65 60 200 94 84 30099 97 400 100 98 57-02 100 40 45 200 77 75 300 91 90 400 94 98 57-03 10063 37 200 82 82 300 97 99 400 99 97 57-04 100 52 38 200 79 73 300 95 98400 99 97 57-05 100 73 68 200 85 94 300 98 99 400 100 99 57-06 100 38 58200 73 92 300 85 100 400 100 98 57-07 100 50 43 200 80 78 300 94 86 40094 95 57-08 100 50 48 200 75 62 300 89 77 400 90 79 57-09 100 91 47 20098 75 300 99 97 400 99 94 57-10 100 87 38 200 89 73 300 99 83 400 100 9457-11 100 77 73 200 93 79 300 98 96 400 99 98 57-12 100 55 52 200 82 89300 96 99 400 99 100 57-13 100 75 63 200 93 92 300 98 99 400 99 99 57-14100 78 82 200 88 86 300 96 99 400 99 100 57-15 100 77 68 200 94 95 30098 97 400 99 98 57-16 100 75 75 200 88 99 300 98 99 400 99 100 57-17 10072 77 200 85 98 300 98 100 400 99 99 57-18 100 77 77 200 90 96 300 97 99400 99 100

Herbicidal activity with compositions 57-13 to 57-18, based onalkylamine based surfactants known in the art, was very high in thistest. Compositions 57-01 to 57-12 of the present invention alsoexhibited excellent herbicidal effectiveness. Overall, surfactants “SurfH1” to “Surf H5” having hydrocarbon hydrophobes were not quite aseffective as Fluorad FC-754 having a fluorocarbon hydrophobe, eitherwhen used as sole excipient substance or together with lecithin.

Example 58

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 58a. These compositionsare water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsions and were prepared byprocess (vi) described above.

TABLE 58a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier Emulsifier % in inneraq. phase Emulsifier Emulsifier comp. a.e. stearate #1 #2 WaterGlyphosate #1 #2 58-01 10 18.0 3.0 5.0 9.0 20 Span 80 Tween 20 58-02 107.5 3.0 5.0 4.5 20 Span 80 Tween 20 58-03 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol104 Neodol 25-12 58-04 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Neodol 25-2058-05 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tergitol 15-S-15 58-06 10 7.53.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tergitol 15-S-20 58-07 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0Surfynol 104 Tween 20 58-08 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104ceteareth-55 58-09 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Surfynol 104 Tergitol 15-S-3058-10 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Neodol 25-3 ceteareth-55 58-11 10 7.5 3.010.0 4.5 0 Neodol 25-3 Tergitol 15-S-30 58-12 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Span60 ceteareth-55 58-13 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Span 60 Tergitol 15-S-3058-14 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 oleth-2 ceteareth-55 58-15 10 7.5 3.0 10.04.5 0 oleth-2 Tergitol 15-S-30 58-16 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Emid 6545ceteareth-55 58-17 10 7.5 3.0 10.0 4.5 0 Emid 6545 Tergitol 15-S-30

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 35 days after planting ABUTH and 33 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 58b.

TABLE 58b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./ha ABUTHECHCF Formulation B 150 0 0 250 35 40 350 50 63 450 60 43 Formulation C150 63 63 250 80 96 350 92 98 450 98 87 Formulation J 150 43 30 250 7585 350 82 98 450 96 95 58-01 150 65 53 250 85 70 350 90 87 450 98 7358-02 150 63 5 250 78 53 350 88 80 450 97 87 58-03 150 75 0 250 87 22350 88 72 450 97 17 58-04 150 84 0 250 90 10 350 95 70 450 98 60 58-05150 77 0 250 83 3 350 93 30 450 95 10 58-06 150 72 0 250 83 47 350 94 60450 98 20 58-07 150 75 0 250 77 40 350 96 47 450 96 50 58-08 150 87 40250 97 82 350 99 83 450 100 77 58-09 150 82 10 250 82 40 350 96 67 45097 67 58-10 150 82 13 250 94 83 350 99 85 450 99 83 58-11 150 73 17 25083 60 350 88 73 450 96 63 58-12 150 80 20 250 93 85 350 96 82 450 96 8258-13 150 78 20 250 83 50 350 92 90 450 92 85 58-14 150 80 30 250 97 85350 99 99 450 97 96 58-15 150 82 30 250 87 75 350 99 92 450 99 93 58-16150 82 53 250 96 82 350 96 97 450 87 82 58-17 150 72 20 250 80 63 350 9275 450 95 87

Considerable variation was seen in herbicidal effectiveness ofwater-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsions of this Example, especially onECHCF. Among the most efficacious were 58-08, 58-10, 58-12, 58-14 and58-16. All of these contained a C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylether surfactant,ceteareth-55. When Tergitol 15-S-30, a C₁₂₋₁₅ secondary alkylethersurfactant, replaced ceteareth-55, as in 58-09, 58-11, 58-13, 58-15 and58-17, herbicidal effectiveness, at least on ECHCF, was in most casesmarkedly reduced.

Example 59

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 59a. Concentratecompositions 59-01 and 59-02 are water-in-oil-in-water multipleemulsions and were prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier#1. Concentrate compositions 59-03 to 59-12 and 59-14 to 59-17 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecomposition 59-13 is an aqueous solution concentrate and was prepared byprocess (viii), the component indicated below as “emulsifier #2” beingthe surfactant component.

TABLE 59a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier % in inner aq. PhaseEmulsifier comp. a.e. stearate Span 80 #2 Water Glyphosate #2 59-01 1018.0 3.0 5.0 12.2 20 Tween 20 59-02 10 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.3 20 Tween 20 59-0310 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-04 10 3.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-05 10 1.0 5.0Neodol 25-20 59-06 10 3.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-07 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol25-20 59-08 15 3.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-09 15 1.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-1015 3.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-11 20 1.0 5.0 Neodol 25-20 59-12 20 1.0 10.0Neodol 25-20 59-13 10 10.0 Neodol 25-20 59-14 10 7.5 10.0 Neodol 25-2059-15 10 7.5 10.0 Neodol 25-12 59-16 10 7.5 10.0 steareth-20 59-17 107.5 10.0 oleth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,average for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 59b.

TABLE 59b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 30 250 10 40 350 37 73 450 58 68Formulation C 150 42 79 250 77 98 350 99 97 450 97 93 Formulation J 15043 67 250 73 90 350 94 98 450 77 78 59-01 150 58 76 250 75 77 350 88 93450 95 83 59-02 150 27 63 250 60 87 350 82 98 450 77 92 59-03 150 47 76250 65 92 350 94 99 450 95 91 59-04 150 70 86 250 86 95 350 97 98 450 9990 59-05 150 42 80 250 72 90 350 90 93 450 99 96 59-06 150 48 57 250 7892 350 94 99 450 96 92 59-07 150 78 95 250 96 96 350 98 98 450 100 9759-08 150 88 96 250 98 98 350 100 99 450 100 99 59-09 150 82 93 250 9496 350 99 97 450 99 93 59-10 150 72 83 250 97 93 350 99 100 450 100 9859-11 150 87 83 250 98 97 350 100 99 450 100 99 59-12 150 93 99 250 9999 350 99 97 450 100 99 59-13 150 70 90 250 91 88 350 97 94 450 99 8659-14 150 67 76 250 93 80 350 98 95 450 95 78 59-15 150 68 65 250 90 87350 97 80 450 98 93 59-16 150 83 73 250 90 93 350 99 100 450 100 10059-17 150 80 66 250 98 77 350 99 83 450 100 85

Very high herbicidal activity was evident in compositions 59-13 to59-17, which have a very high ratio of surfactant to glyphosate a.e. of1:1. Activity was too high to clearly distinguish among thesecompositions, but 59-16 and 59-17, containing steareth-20 and oleth-20respectively, exbited greater effectiveness on ABUTH at the lowestglyphosate rate than 59-14 and 59-15, containing Neodol 25-20 and Neodol25-12 respectively.

Example 60

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 60a. Concentratecompositions 60-01 and 60-02 are water-in-oil-in-water multipleemulsions and were prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier#1. Concentrate compositions 60-03 to 60-12 and 60-14 to 60-17 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecomposition 60-13 is an aqueous solution concentrate and was prepared byprocess (viii), the component indicated below as “emulsifier #2” beingthe surfactant component.

TABLE 60a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Butyl Emulsifier % in inner aq. PhaseEmulsifier comp. a.e. stearate Span 80 #2 Water Glyphosate #2 60-01 1018.0 3.0 5.0 12.2 20 Tween 20 60-02 10 7.5 3.0 5.0 5.3 20 Tween 20 60-0310 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-04 10 3.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-05 10 1.0 5.0 Tween80 60-06 10 3.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-07 15 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-08 15 3.010.0 Tween 80 60-09 15 1.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-10 15 3.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-1120 1.0 5.0 Tween 80 60-12 20 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 60-13 10 10.0 Tween 8060-14 10 7.5 10.0 Tween 80 60-15 10 7.5 10.0 Neodol 25-20 60-16 10 7.510.0 steareth-20 60-17 10 7.5 10.0 oleth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and 19 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 60b.

TABLE 60b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Composition applied g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 0 250 3 10 350 17 20 450 20 30Formulation C 150 70 33 250 80 70 350 85 80 450 97 77 Formulation J 1507 20 250 70 80 350 78 80 450 83 80 60-01 150 40 7 250 48 20 350 73 23450 75 30 60-02 150 3 0 250 10 17 350 47 23 450 50 30 60-03 150 0 2 25033 13 350 63 40 450 68 43 60-04 150 17 7 250 43 20 350 78 63 450 78 6360-05 150 10 3 250 20 13 350 58 40 450 75 40 60-06 150 3 0 250 27 20 35060 23 450 72 23 60-07 150 32 10 250 68 20 350 75 50 450 86 60 60-08 15027 20 250 68 30 350 82 40 450 90 73 60-09 150 43 10 250 60 33 350 72 63450 75 73 60-10 150 33 10 250 62 30 350 77 60 450 83 70 60-11 150 48 13250 72 63 350 83 80 450 87 80 60-12 150 23 13 250 60 50 350 75 80 450 8678 60-13 150 32 13 250 47 40 350 75 50 450 78 70 60-14 150 27 20 250 7553 350 82 70 450 92 67 60-15 150 70 20 250 78 30 350 92 80 450 93 8060-16 150 68 40 250 73 30 350 93 80 450 93 77 60-17 150 73 20 250 85 30350 93 60 450 95 63

Compositions 60-16 and 60-17, containing steareth-20 and oleth-20respectively, exhibited very high herbicidal activity on ABUTH. At thevery high surfactant to glyphosate a.e. ratio (1:1) of thesecompositions, no difference was evident between these compositions andan otherwise similar composition (60-15) containing Neodol 25-20 inplace of steareth-20 or oleth-20.

Example 61

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 61a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).

TABLE 61a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant 61-01 163 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 61-02163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-12 61-03 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-20 61-04 1631.00 10.0 steareth-20 61-05 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 61-06 163 1.00 10.0Tergitol 15-S-40 61-07 163 1.00 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 61-08 163 1.0010.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 61-09 163 0.50 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 61-10 1630.50 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 61-11 163 0.50 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 61-12163 0.50 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 61-13 163 0.50 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 61-14163 0.50 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 61-15 163 0.25 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 61b.

TABLE 61b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 2 20 250 2 30 350 5 53 450 45 75Formulation C 150 45 63 250 77 93 350 83 99 450 93 100 Formulation J 15015 40 250 70 73 350 78 98 450 92 99 61-01 150 42 50 250 72 89 350 80 96450 93 98 61-02 150 45 80 250 72 83 350 85 91 450 97 98 61-03 150 60 80250 75 87 350 82 96 450 86 99 61-04 150 65 60 250 82 70 350 93 80 450 9887 61-05 150 72 60 250 83 87 350 95 93 450 98 97 61-06 150 50 45 250 6870 350 77 85 450 83 90 61-07 150 25 40 250 65 50 350 80 77 450 83 8061-08 150 37 33 250 72 80 350 77 87 450 80 90 61-09 150 32 47 250 65 73350 77 75 450 80 94 61-10 150 17 30 250 65 70 350 75 70 450 78 89 61-11150 35 33 250 68 68 350 77 77 450 92 75 61-12 150 13 35 250 57 40 350 7557 450 77 83 61-13 150 35 40 250 63 43 350 77 77 450 83 75 61-14 150 3025 250 67 53 350 78 85 450 83 77 61-15 150 13 37 250 65 50 350 77 57 45087 82

At a surfactant to glyphosate a.e. weight/weight ratio of about 1:1.5,compositions containing steareth-20 or oleth-20 (61-04 and 61-05respectively) exhibited herbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH similar to onecontaining Neodol 25-20 (61-03).

Example 62

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 62a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).

TABLE 62a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant 62-01 163 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 62-02163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-12 62-03 163 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 62-04 163 1.010.0 steareth-20 62-05 163 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 62-06 163 1.0 10.0 Tergitol15-S-40 62-06 163 1.0 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 62-08 163 1.0 10.0 Tergitol15-S-20 62-09 163 0.5 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-40 62-10 163 0.3 10.0 Tergitol15-S-15 62-11 163 0.3 10.0 Tergitol 15-S-20 62-12 163 0.3 10.0 Tergitol15-S-40 62-13 163 0.3 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-15 62-14 163 0.3 5.0 Tergitol15-S-20 62-15 163 0.3 5.0 Tergitol 15-S-40

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 62b.

TABLE 62b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 23 250 0 40 350 5 53 450 13 57Formulation C 150 0 47 250 28 87 350 72 98 450 97 97 Formulation J 150 540 250 20 63 350 67 93 450 82 92 62-01 150 2 40 250 30 50 350 50 70 45057 85 62-02 150 10 50 250 33 50 350 75 72 450 75 88 62-03 150 17 53 25060 60 350 70 92 450 78 94 62-04 150 57 45 250 70 70 350 82 93 450 83 9562-05 150 47 45 250 70 80 350 80 88 450 88 92 62-06 150 2 42 250 20 60350 35 75 450 58 89 62-07 150 0 42 250 30 68 350 40 75 450 77 82 62-08150 2 40 250 25 60 350 50 83 450 75 86 62-09 150 2 43 250 27 83 350 4073 450 70 78 62-10 150 2 42 250 32 47 350 43 63 450 70 82 62-11 150 0 30250 25 53 350 35 75 450 70 75 62-12 150 2 40 250 13 57 350 25 75 450 4083 62-13 150 5 42 250 23 62 350 38 63 450 67 60 62-14 150 2 33 250 13 48350 30 53 450 70 88 62-15 150 2 33 250 18 48 350 30 75 450 43 65

In this test, herbicidal effectiveness overall was lower than in theprevious Example, particularly on ABUTH. In these circumstances, at asurfactant to glyphosate a.e. weight/weight ratio of about 1:1.5,compositions containing steareth-20 or oleth-20 (62-04 and 62-05respectively) exhibited greater herbicidal effectiveness on both ABUTHand ECHCF than one containing Neodol 25-20 (62-03).

Example 63

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosateammonium or IPA salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 63a.Concentrate composition 63-01 is a water-in-oil-in-water multipleemulsion and was prepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier#1. Concentrate compositions 63-02 to 63-11 and 63-17 are oil-in-wateremulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions63-12 to 63-16 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared byprocess (viii), the component indicated below as “emulsifier #2” beingthe surfactant component.

TABLE 63a % w/w % in inner Gly- Bu- E- aq. phase Gly- phos- tyl mul-Gly- Emul- phos- Conc. ate stea- Span sifier Wa- phos- sifier ate comp.a.e. rate 80 #2 ter ate #2 salt 63-01 10 18.0 3.0 5.0 9.0 20 Tween IPA20 63-02 15 1.0 10.0 Tween IPA 80 63-03 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol IPA 25-1263-04 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol IPA 25-20 63-05 15 1.0 10.0 steareth- IPA 2063-06 15 1.0 10.0 oleth- IPA 20 63-07 15 1.0 10.0 Tween ammo- 80 nium63-08 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol ammo- 25-12 nium 63-09 15 1.0 10.0 Neodol ammo-25-20 nium 63-10 15 1.0 10.0 steareth- ammo- 20 nium 63-11 15 1.0 10.0oleth- ammo- 20 nium 63-12 15 10.0 Tween IPA 80 63-13 15 10.0 Neodol IPA25-12 63-14 15 10.0 Neodol IPA 25-20 63-15 15 10.0 steareth- IPA 2063-16 15 10.0 oleth- IPA 20 63-17 15 1.0 10.0 Emerest IPA 2661

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 63b.

TABLE 63b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 2 5 250 3 25 350 28 30 450 53 50Formulation C 150 5 25 250 60 50 350 85 83 450 88 88 Formulation J 150 210 250 70 40 350 82 53 450 87 83 63-01 150 23 20 250 72 30 350 80 80 45085 69 63-02 150 5 18 250 72 38 350 82 63 450 85 83 63-03 150 25 20 25070 57 350 85 68 450 90 83 63-04 150 25 27 250 77 67 350 85 62 450 88 7063-05 150 60 25 250 82 62 350 87 73 450 85 80 63-06 150 50 32 250 78 78350 91 91 450 98 98 63-07 150 5 25 250 55 77 350 77 86 450 83 99 63-08150 0 13 250 58 78 350 80 85 450 85 87 63-09 150 7 25 250 57 72 350 7783 450 91 92 63-10 150 50 25 250 80 55 350 86 87 450 92 82 63-11 150 5330 250 78 80 350 87 89 450 95 98 63-12 150 0 25 250 50 77 350 77 90 45083 94 63-13 150 2 30 250 55 75 350 72 92 450 85 80 63-14 150 12 30 25075 78 350 84 90 450 96 94 63-15 150 55 35 250 78 80 350 80 94 450 86 9863-16 150 50 35 250 73 63 350 84 83 450 89 95 63-17 150 0 10 250 10 53350 53 83 450 62 87

Compositions containing steareth-20 or oleth-20 (63-05, 63-06, 63-10,63-11, 63-15, 63-16) generally exhibited superior herbicidaleffectiveness to counterparts containing Neodol 25-20 (63-04, 63-09,63-14), at least on ABUTH. The presence of a small amount of butylstearate tended to enhance effectiveness on ABUTH (compare 63-05 and63-06 with 63-15 and 63-16).

Example 64

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 64a. Concentratecomposition 64-01 is a water-in-oil-in-water multiple emulsion and wasprepared by process (vi), using Span 80 as emulsifier #1. Concentratecompositions 64-02 to 64-08, 64-14, 64-16 and 64-17 are oil-in-wateremulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions64-09 to 64-13 and 64-15 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii), the component indicated below as “emulsifier#2” being the surfactant component.

TABLE 64a % w/w % in inner Gly- Bu- E- aq. phase phos- tyl mul- Gly-Emul- Conc. ate stea- Span sifier Wa- phos- sifier comp. a.e. rate 80 #2ter ate #2 64-01 10 18.0 3.0 2.5 9.0 20 Tween 20 64-02 15 1.0 10.0Emerest 2661 64-03 15 1.0 10.0 Tween 80 64-04 15 1.0 10.0 oleth-20 64-0515 1.0 10.0 Neodol 25-20 64-06 15 1.0 10.0 ceteareth-27 64-07 15 1.010.0 ceteareth-55 64-08 15 1.0 10.0 Genapol UD-110 64-09 15 10.0ceteareth-27 64-10 15 10.0 ceteareth-55 64-11 15 10.0 Genapol UD-11064-12 15 10.0 oleth-20 64-13 10 10.0 oleth-20 64-14 10 1.0 10.0 oleth-2064-15 20 10.0 oleth-20 64-16 15 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 64-17 15 0.5 10.0oleth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 64b.

TABLE 64b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 0 250 8 20 350 27 40 450 62 50Formulation C 150 27 50 250 75 70 350 92 80 450 97 92 Formulation J 15023 30 250 72 50 350 94 63 450 95 80 64-01 150 22 30 250 60 40 350 83 57450 90 67 64-02 150 12 33 250 45 50 350 73 63 450 83 83 64-03 150 27 43250 68 50 350 80 63 450 87 87 64-04 150 68 47 250 95 73 350 99 78 450 9590 64-05 150 50 50 250 77 77 350 90 83 450 98 83 64-06 150 78 67 250 9382 350 97 87 450 99 97 64-07 150 87 57 250 96 73 350 99 85 450 99 9764-08 150 42 30 250 73 53 350 82 85 450 95 89 64-09 150 67 40 250 95 73350 99 95 450 99 98 64-10 150 85 60 250 96 68 350 96 91 450 100 88 64-11150 13 10 250 67 50 350 78 60 450 88 73 64-12 150 72 43 250 97 68 350 9883 450 99 93 64-13 150 73 57 250 88 70 350 98 87 450 99 96 64-14 150 8050 250 96 70 350 99 85 450 98 88 64-15 150 70 43 250 96 53 350 97 82 45099 89 64-16 150 62 53 250 88 72 350 99 81 450 99 91 64-17 150 72 58 25095 68 350 100 89 450 100 93

The greatest herbicidal effectiveness in this test was exhibited bycompositions containing a C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylether surfactant (oleth-20,ceteareth-27 or ceteareth-55).

Example 65

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 65a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).

TABLE 65a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant 65-01 163 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 65-02163 1.00 10.0 Emerest 2661 65-03 326 1.00 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-04 3260.50 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-05 326 0.25 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-06 1630.25 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-07 163 1.00 10.0 Genapol UD-110 65-08 1631.00 10.0 Neodol 1-9 65-09 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 1-12 65-10 163 1.00 10.0Neodol 25-20 65-11 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-12 65-12 163 1.00 10.0 Neodox25-11 65-13 163 1.00 10.0 laureth-23 65-14 163 1.00 10.0 ceteth-20 65-15163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20 65-16 163 1.00 10.0 oleth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 15 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 23 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 65b.

TABLE 65b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 0 250 25 22 350 60 40 450 65 52Formulation C 150 43 52 250 72 83 350 87 98 450 97 95 Formulation J 15050 43 250 75 91 350 86 96 450 95 97 65-01 150 50 30 250 75 75 350 85 87450 90 92 65-02 150 35 47 250 58 77 350 75 85 450 80 96 65-03 150 33 32250 57 53 350 75 78 450 84 94 65-04 150 20 25 250 55 68 350 78 91 450 8297 65-05 150 37 12 250 58 42 350 81 70 450 86 73 65-06 150 50 8 250 6540 350 81 65 450 92 85 65-07 150 50 30 250 63 48 350 84 68 450 98 8465-08 150 43 35 250 52 65 350 73 85 450 84 85 65-09 150 55 40 250 68 58350 79 65 450 97 73 65-10 150 69 40 250 81 68 350 94 92 450 99 96 65-11150 58 50 250 84 60 350 90 83 450 94 93 65-12 150 50 40 250 57 67 350 6584 450 75 98 65-13 150 57 53 250 78 73 350 89 97 450 98 97 65-14 150 6867 250 85 73 350 97 98 450 100 97 65-15 150 72 50 250 88 89 350 89 98450 99 97 65-16 150 65 53 250 87 72 350 97 85 450 100 95

Activity overall in this test was very high, and differences amongcompositions in herbicidal effectiveness are difficult to discernclearly.

Example 66

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 66a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). The pH of allcompositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 66a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l Stearate Surfactant surfactant 66-01 163 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 66-02163 1.00 10.0 Emerest 2661 66-03 163 1.00 10.0 Neodol 25-20 66-04 1631.00 10.0 oleth-20 66-05 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 66-06 163 0.25 2.5oleth-20 66-07 163 0.50 2.5 oleth-20 66-08 163 0.50 1.0 oleth-20 66-09163 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 66-10 326 1.00 10.0 Neodol 1-12 66-11 326 0.5010.0 Neodol 1-12 66-12 326 0.25 10.0 Neodol 1-12 66-13 326 1.00 5.0Neodol 1-12 66-14 326 0.50 5.0 Neodol 1-12 66-15 326 0.25 5.0 Neodol1-12 66-16 326 0.10 5.0 Neodol 1-12

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 15 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 66b.

TABLE 66b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 7 50 250 45 60 350 73 73 450 80 78Formulation C 150 75 77 250 87 100 350 96 99 450 99 97 Formulation J 15072 77 250 83 89 350 97 99 450 97 98 66-01 150 60 75 250 80 85 350 93 97450 98 98 66-02 150 57 75 250 70 83 350 87 83 450 90 94 66-03 150 77 80250 87 92 350 97 87 450 99 98 66-04 150 80 89 250 93 92 350 99 99 450100 99 66-05 150 83 83 250 92 93 350 97 90 450 100 93 66-06 150 77 77250 80 91 350 90 99 450 98 99 66-07 150 77 83 250 82 89 350 90 91 450 9798 66-08 150 47 82 250 73 82 350 80 97 450 92 91 66-09 150 73 78 250 8788 350 97 94 450 99 99 66-10 150 52 67 250 70 80 350 93 88 450 93 9466-11 150 40 68 250 72 85 350 87 96 450 93 96 66-12 150 37 60 250 68 83350 85 85 450 93 75 66-13 150 28 63 250 53 80 350 85 97 450 88 97 66-14150 37 63 250 58 73 350 83 96 450 90 91 66-15 150 30 70 250 47 83 350 8289 450 87 89 66-16 150 40 53 250 53 82 350 80 80 450 88 77

Composition 66-04, containing 1% butyl stearate and 10% oleth-20(surfactant to glyphosate a.e. weight/weight ratio about 1:1.5),exhibited marginally greater herbicidal effectiveness than composition66-03, containing 1% butyl stearate and 10% Neodol 25-20. At this veryhigh surfactant to glyphosate ratio, however, both performed extremelywell. Surprisingly, when the butyl stearate and oleth-20 concentrationswere significantly lowered, this high level of performance wasmaintained to a remarkable degree. Even when butyl stearate was reducedto 0.25% and oleth-20 to 2.5% (surfactant to glyphosate a.e. ratio about1:6), as in composition 66-06, herbicidal effectiveness was stillsimilar to that obtained with commercial standard Formulations C and J.

Example 67

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 67a. Concentratecompositions 67-01 to 67-08 and 67-11 to 67-16 are oil-in-wateremulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions67-09 and 67-10 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared byprocess (viii). The pH of all compositions was approximately 5.

TABLE 67a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition a.e.stearate Surfactant surfactant 67-01 15.0 0.25 5.0 Emerest 2661 67-0215.0 0.25 5.0 Tween 80 67-03 15.0 0.25 5.0 Neodol 25-20 67-04 15.0 0.255.0 laureth-23 67-05 15.0 0.25 5.0 ceteth-20 67-06 15.0 0.25 2.5 Tween80 67-07 15.0 0.10 1.0 Tween 80 67-08 15.0 1.00 10.0 Tween 80 67-09 15.05.0 laureth-23 67-10 15.0 5.0 ceteth-20 67-11 15.0 1.00 10.0 Neodol25-20 67-12 15.0 1.00 10.0 oleth-20 67-13 15.0 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 67-1415.0 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 67-15 15.0 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 67-16 15.0 0.25 5.0Genapol UD-110

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 12 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 67b.

TABLE 67b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 2 10 250 5 20 350 43 30 450 58 43Formulation C 150 68 50 250 92 79 350 96 90 450 98 85 Formulation J 15057 43 250 90 63 350 95 80 450 95 95 67-01 150 7 33 250 50 43 350 77 53450 80 93 67-02 150 17 50 250 72 70 350 80 80 450 80 93 67-03 150 43 40250 75 68 350 87 75 450 96 95 67-04 150 33 47 250 73 63 350 80 77 450 9093 67-05 150 73 37 250 92 57 350 95 88 450 95 73 67-06 150 25 35 250 6847 350 80 92 450 88 85 67-07 150 3 30 250 57 40 350 77 53 450 80 6767-08 150 53 43 250 77 62 350 80 88 450 93 80 67-09 150 32 60 250 77 53350 93 73 450 97 93 67-10 150 75 35 250 92 77 350 96 77 450 97 93 67-11150 75 53 250 90 78 350 95 89 450 98 97 67-12 150 80 43 250 95 73 350 9692 450 98 89 67-13 150 75 53 250 92 97 350 97 99 450 96 93 67-14 150 7870 250 90 92 350 93 97 450 95 93 67-15 150 70 60 250 83 98 350 95 99 45097 99 67-16 150 27 52 250 75 73 350 80 98 450 83 99

Extremely high herbicidal effectiveness was again observed with acomposition (67-15) containing 15% glyphosate a.e. and just 2.5%oleth-20 together with 0.25% butyl stearate. A comparison of 15%glyphosate a.e. compositions containing 5% alkylether surfactant and0.25% butyl stearate provided the following ranking of alkylethers indescending order of effectiveness: oleth-20 (67-14)>ceteth-20(67-05)>Neodol 25-20 (67-03)=laureth-23 (67-04).

Example 68

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 68a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).

TABLE 68a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant 68-01 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 68-02163 0.25 5.0 oleth-20 68-03 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 68-04 163 1.00 10.0oleth-20 68-05 163 0.50 5.0 steareth-20 68-06 163 0.25 5.0 steareth-2068-07 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 68-08 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 68b.

TABLE 68b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 30 250 20 43 350 43 53 450 68 57Formulation C 150 60 47 250 75 53 350 87 80 450 87 78 Formulation J 15042 43 250 83 60 350 87 73 450 93 87 68-01 150 60 60 250 78 63 350 87 89450 92 78 68-02 150 70 43 250 80 91 350 87 86 450 96 87 68-03 150 52 43250 75 72 350 83 93 450 87 94 68-04 150 72 50 250 93 73 350 97 95 450 9791 68-05 150 72 43 250 80 78 350 87 91 450 93 85 68-06 150 68 40 250 8050 350 93 75 450 95 85 68-07 150 63 37 250 78 55 350 87 84 450 83 8268-08 150 70 50 250 80 70 350 92 84 450 94 98

All compositions containing butyl stearate and either oleth-20 orsteareth-20 showed a very high level of performance by comparison withcommercial standard Formulations C and J.

Example 69

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 69a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).

TABLE 69a Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w Type of composition g a.e./lstearate Surfactant surfactant 69-01 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 69-02 1630.25 5.0 oleth-20 69-03 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 69-04 163 1.00 10.0oleth-20 69-05 163 0.50 5.0 steareth-20 69-06 163 0.25 5.0 steareth-2069-07 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 69-08 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 69b.

TABLE 69b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 3 10 250 28 23 350 72 37 450 73 50Formulation C 150 57 43 250 87 62 350 93 83 450 99 95 Formulation J 15027 47 250 70 53 350 92 75 450 94 92 69-01 150 68 50 250 85 47 350 97 70450 99 83 69-02 150 67 40 250 78 50 350 96 63 450 99 68 69-03 150 52 40250 72 50 350 95 63 450 97 85 69-04 150 72 40 250 97 53 350 97 77 450 9990 69-05 150 75 40 250 missing 53 350 88 53 450 96 78 69-06 150 98 40250 93 50 350 97 68 450 97 82 69-07 150 73 40 250 92 50 350 98 63 450 9880 69-08 150 77 43 250 93 57 350 97 77 450 98 88

All compositions containing butyl stearate and either oleth-20 orsteareth-20 showed a very high level of performance by comparison withcommercial standard Formulations C and J.

Example 70

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 70a. All containcolloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).

All compositions of this example showed acceptable storage stability.The compositions containing oleth-20 were not acceptably storage-stablein the absence of the colloidal particulate.

TABLE 70a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Oleth-20 Aerosil Aerosil 70-01 488 3.0 0.4 OX-50 70-02488 3.0 0.8 OX-50 70-03 488 3.0 1.5 OX-50 70-04 488 0.4 OX-50 70-05 4880.8 OX-50 70-06 488 1.5 OX-50 70-07 488 3.0 0.4 MOX-80 70-08 488 3.0 0.8MOX-80 70-09 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80 70-10 488 0.4 MOX-80 70-11 488 0.8MOX-80 70-12 488 1.5 MOX-80 70-13 488 3.0 0.4 MOX-170 70-14 488 3.0 0.8MOX-170 70-15 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-170 70-16 488 0.4 MOX-170 70-17 488 0.8MOX-170 70-18 488 1.5 MOX-170 70-19 488 3.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 14 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 70b.

TABLE 70b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 27 250 17 37 350 47 57 450 60 60Formulation J 150 57 50 250 82 87 350 95 99 450 98 99 70-01 150 37 60250 73 70 350 96 97 450 96 99 70-02 150 43 50 250 73 63 350 93 96 450 9899 70-03 150 53 60 250 83 87 350 87 97 450 98 98 70-04 150 45 40 250 5760 350 78 95 450 94 100 70-05 150 47 50 250 60 82 350 92 96 450 95 9970-06 150 38 53 250 68 96 350 82 99 450 83 95 70-07 150 50 57 250 87 88350 91 99 450 98 98 70-08 150 53 50 250 88 85 350 96 97 450 97 100 70-09150 40 30 250 37 47 350 57 80 450 77 94 70-10 150 47 50 250 70 95 350 7599 450 77 98 70-11 150 27 60 250 72 85 350 82 98 450 75 99 70-12 150 3757 250 73 86 350 80 99 450 85 100 70-13 150 45 53 250 85 94 350 95 100450 98 99 70-14 150 50 50 250 78 83 350 94 98 450 98 99 70-15 150 53 67250 75 88 350 93 97 450 96 99 70-16 150 42 50 250 47 96 350 70 98 450 9099 70-17 150 27 83 250 57 98 350 87 99 450 87 100 70-18 150 33 60 250 4794 350 83 99 450 93 99 70-19 150 45 47 250 80 73 350 96 94 450 99 98

Remarkably high levels of herbicidal effectiveness were obtained in thistest with compositions containing oleth-20 at a weight/weight ratio toglyphosate a.e. of about 1:14, and stabilized with colloidalparticulates. In some cases the colloidal particulate alone contributeda major part of the efficacy enhancement. Results with composition 70-09are out of line with other data and an application problem is suspected.

Example 71

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 71a. Concentratecompositions 71-01 to 71-04, 71-06, 71-08, 71-09, 71-11, 71-12, 71-14and 71-16 are oil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).Concentrate compositions 71-05, 71-07, 71-10, 71-13, 71-15 and 71-17 areaqueous solution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).

TABLE 71a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant 71-01 163 0.25 2.5 Neodol 1-1271-02 163 0.25 2.5 laureth-23 71-03 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-10 71-04 1630.25 2.5 steareth-20 71-05 163 2.5 steareth-20 71-06 163 0.25 2.5steareth-100 71-07 163 2.5 steareth-100 71-08 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-1071-09 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 71-10 163 2.5 oleth-20 71-11 163 0.25 2.5ceteth-10 71-12 163 0.25 2.5 ceteth-20 71-13 163 2.5 ceteth-20 71-14 3260.50 5.0 ceteareth-27 71-15 326 5.0 ceteareth-27 71-16 163 0.25 2.5ceteareth-55 71-17 163 2.5 ceteareth-55

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 71b.

TABLE 71b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 0 33 250 20 43 350 63 63 450 75 70Formulation C 150 53 55 250 80 87 350 94 97 450 98 99 Formulation J 15040 57 250 80 90 350 96 99 450 98 99 71-01 150 52 40 250 65 73 350 77 70450 77 70 71-02 150 37 70 250 75 80 350 83 97 450 95 99 71-03 150 47 53250 77 86 350 83 97 450 93 100 71-04 150 80 60 250 93 83 350 96 85 45099 99 71-05 150 80 43 250 93 79 350 96 94 450 98 96 71-06 150 77 53 25085 83 350 94 99 450 97 99 71-07 150 63 50 250 80 88 350 85 96 450 96 9971-08 150 27 45 250 75 83 350 77 99 450 96 98 71-09 150 75 57 250 80 82350 97 95 450 99 98 71-10 150 70 40 250 85 83 350 97 98 450 99 99 71-11150 53 37 250 75 63 350 88 93 450 92 98 71-12 150 70 40 250 78 75 350 9091 450 98 98 71-13 150 72 40 250 92 80 350 97 90 450 99 97 71-14 150 7853 250 89 88 350 97 95 450 99 100 71-15 150 80 60 250 95 97 350 98 100450 99 99 71-16 150 60 63 250 87 78 350 96 94 450 98 99 71-17 150 73 60250 85 57 350 93 80 450 99 85

In combination with butyl stearate, steareth-20 (composition 71-04) gavegreater herbicidal effectiveness than steareth-10 (71-03) on ABUTH.Similarly, oleth-20 (71-09) was more efficacious than oleth-10 (71-08)and ceteth-20 (71-12) than ceteth-10 (71-11). In the absence of butylstearate, ceteareth-55 (71-17) was noticeably weaker on ECHCF thanceteareth-27 (71-15) but inclusion of butyl stearate (71-16) tended tocorrect this weakness. Note that while compositions 71-14 and 71-15contained twice as high a concentration of excipients as the othercompositions of the test, the concentration of glyphosate was also twiceas high, thus the concentrations as sprayed were the same.

Example 72

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 72a. Concentratecompositions 72-01 to 72-05, 72-07, 72-08, 72-10 and 72-12 to 72-16 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecompositions 72-06, 72-09 and 72-11 are aqueous solution concentratesand were prepared by process (viii).

TABLE 72a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl composition g a.e./lstearate Surfactant Type of surfactant 72-01 163 0.25 2.5 Neodol 1-1272-02 163 0.25 2.5 laureth-23 72-03 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-10 72-04 1630.25 2.5 steareth-20 72-05 163 0.25 2.5 Pluronic F-68 72-06 163 2.5Pluronic F-68 72-07 326 1.00 5.0 Pluronic F-108 72-08 326 0.50 5.0Pluronic F-108 72-09 326 5.0 Pluronic F-108 72-10 163 0.25 2.5 PluronicF-127 72-11 163 2.5 Pluronic F-127 72-12 326 0.50 5.0 ceteareth-27 72-13163 0.25 2.5 ceteareth-55 72-14 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-20 72-15 163 0.25 2.5ceteth-20 72-16 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-100

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 72b.

TABLE 72b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150  5  0 250 47  5 350 70 23 450 75 43Formulation C 150 73 47 250 99 50 350 98 67 450 99 75 Formulation J 15073 43 250 89 50 350 97 83 450 98 77 72-01 150 37 30 250 70 33 350 77 40450 90 47 72-02 150 52 37 250 77 67 350 90 77 450 92 75 72-03 150 40 30250 77 70 350 80 82 450 90 83 72-04 150 75 37 250 95 53 350 99 91 450 9982 72-05 150 58 37 250 65 53 350 80 80 450 75 68 72-06 150 40 30 250 7533 350 78 43 450 80 43 72-07 150 50 30 250 75 33 350 78 53 450 86 5372-08 150 47 30 250 75 33 350 77 40 450 80 50 72-09 150 43 33 250 77 40350 78 63 450 83 50 72-10 150 27 40 250 77 43 350 80 50 450 92 40 72-11150 37 30 250 72 33 350 80 60 450 95 40 72-12 150 78 37 250 98 40 350 9953 450 100  50 72-13 150 75 30 250 88 40 350 98 47 450 100  65 72-14 15073 30 250 87 40 350 98 50 450 99 53 72-15 150 72 30 250 93 40 350 96 43450 99 50 72-16 150 73 40 250 83 40 350 98 40 450 100  47

Composition 72-04 containing steareth-20 outperformed its counterpart72-03 containing stearth-10, though both gave greater herbicidaleffectiveness, especially on ECHCF, than 72-02 containing laureth-23 or72-01 containing Neodol 1-12.

Example 73

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 73a. Concentratecompositions 73-01 to 73-07 and 73-09 to 73-15 are oil-in-wateremulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions73-08 and 73-16 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared byprocess (viii).

TABLE 73a Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w composition g a.e./l OilSurfactant Type of oil Type of surfactant 73-01 163 0.5 5.0 methylstearate oleth-20 73-02 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate oleth-20 73-03 1630.5 5.0 methyl oleate oleth-20 73-04 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleate oleth-2073-05 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate oleth-20 73-06 163 0.5 5.0 butyllaurate oleth-20 73-07 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 oleth-20 73-08 163 5.0none oleth-20 73-09 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate Neodol 1-9 73-10 163 0.55.0 butyl stearate Neodol 1-9 73-11 163 0.5 5.0 methyl oleate Neodol 1-973-12 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleate Neodol 1-9 73-13 163 0.5 5.0 methyllaurate Neodol 1-9 73-14 163 0.5 5.0 butyl laurate Neodol 1-9 73-15 1630.5 5.0 Orchex 796 Neodol 1-9 73-16 163 5.0 none Neodol 1-9

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 73b.

TABLE 73b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150  3 10 250 58 57 350 78 53 450 77 53Formulation C 150 60 98 250 87 99 350 95 98 450 99 100  Formulation J150 60 75 250 89 87 350 93 90 450 98 99 73-01 150 75 96 250 99 97 350 9799 450 99 100  73-02 150 60 60 250 97 67 350 99 98 450 100  95 73-03 15063 40 250 83 82 350 97 86 450 97 88 73-04 150 73 40 250 94 82 350 97100  450 99 100  73-05 150 67 47 250 86 67 350 97 88 450 99 100  73-06150 60 43 250 78 91 350 97 83 450 94 86 73-07 150 70 53 250 80 53 350 9782 450 97 92 73-08 150 70 62 250 83 83 350 91 87 450 98 98 73-09 150 4542 250 72 72 350 77 73 450 78 89 73-10 150 40 30 250 82 80 350 78 98 45089 93 73-11 150 40 30 250 65 60 350 77 90 450 96 92 73-12 150 20 30 25063 73 350 80 75 450 93 86 73-13 150 20 27 250 67 60 350 82 91 450 88 9273-14 150  7 30 250 72 81 350 87 78 450 80 85 73-15 150 20 23 250 65 60350 77 81 450 87 88 73-16 150 12 30 250 57 53 350 68 85 450 85 85

Composition 73-08, containing as sole excipient substance oleth-20 at a1:3 weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e., exhibited high herbicidaleffectiveness, at least equal to commercial standard Formulations C andJ on ABUTH but a little weaker on ECHCF. By comparison, composition73-16, wherein the sole excipient substance was Neodol 1-9 at the sameratio to glyphosate, had much weaker activity. Addition of a smallamount of fatty acid ester in most cases enhanced effectiveness,especially on ECHCF. In this study the most efficacious composition was73-01, containing oleth-20 and methyl stearate. When added to Neodol1-9, butyl stearate was more efficacious than methyl stearate, methyloleate or butyl oleate. The mineral oil Orchex 796 did not substituteeffectively for butyl stearate, either with oleth-20 or with Neodol 1-9.

Example 74

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 74a. Concentratecompositions 74-01, 74-03, 74-05 to 74-08, 74-10 and 74-14 to 74-17 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecompositions 74-02, 74-04, 74-09 and 74-11 to 74-13 are aqueous solutionconcentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Some compositionscontained a coupling agent as indicated in Table 74a; the coupling agentwas added with the surfactant.

TABLE 74a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Butyl Coupling Type of comp. g a.e./lstearate Surfactant agent coupling agent Type of surfactant 74-01 3261.0 5.0 2.5 Arcosolve DPM oleth-20 74-02 326 5.0 2.5 Arcosolve DPMoleth-20 74-03 163 0.5 2.5 none oleth-20 74-04 163 2.5 none oleth-2074-05 326 1.0 5.0 none ceteareth-27 74-06 326 1.0 5.0 2.5 PEG-400ceteareth-27 74-07 326 1.0 5.0 2.5 Dowanol TPNB ceteareth-27 74-08 3261.0 5.0 2.5 Dowanol PNB ceteareth-27 74-09 163 2.5 none ceteareth-2774-10 326 0.5 5.0 none ceteareth-27 74-11 326 5.0 2.5 PEG-400ceteareth-27 74-12 326 5.0 2.5 Dowanol TPNB ceteareth-27 74-13 326 5.02.5 Dowanol PNB ceteareth-27 74-14 163 0.5 2.5 none Neodol 1-9 74-15 1630.5 2.5 none laureth-23 74-16 163 0.5 2.5 none steareth-20 74-17 163 0.52.5 none ceteareth-27

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 74b.

TABLE 74b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150  0  5 250 38 20 350 63 30 450 70 70Formulation C 150 70 75 250 92 94 350 99 99 450 99 98 Formulation J 15065 50 250 88 92 350 97 99 450 98 97 74-01 150 58 83 250 77 88 350 93 96450 93 99 74-02 150 40 76 250 75 100  350 92 100  450 92 100  74-03 15048 75 250 83 96 350 92 100  450 99 100  74-04 150 40 82 250 78 99 350 8799 450 98 100  74-05 150 68 92 250 87 99 350 95 99 450 99 99 74-06 15055 60 250 83 99 350 97 99 450 98 98 74-07 150 63 57 250 80 96 350 95 97450 99 98 74-08 150 73 75 250 90 90 350 95 97 450 100  97 74-09 150 7368 250 87 73 350 92 90 450 97 95 74-10 150 70 63 250 87 80 350 98 94 45099 96 74-11 150 73 60 250 90 77 350 99 93 450 100  95 74-12 150 72 67250 83 75 350 90 82 450 99 94 74-13 150 73 70 250 80 83 350 99 94 450100  92 74-14 150  5 20 250 55 63 350 77 93 450 78 99 74-15 150 43 57250 78 88 350 88 98 450 90 98 74-16 150 65 57 250 83 82 350 88 98 450 9597 74-17 150 72 50 250 80 93 350 88 90 450 95 97

The superiority of herbicidal effectiveness provided by C₁₆₋₁₈alkylethers (oleth-20, ceteareth-27, steareth-20) over that provided byshorter chain alkylethers (Neodol 1-9, laureth-23) was very pronouncedin this test.

Example 75

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 75a. Concentratecompositions 75-01 to 75-07 and 75-09 to 75-15 are oil-in-wateremulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate compositions75-08 and 75-16 are aqueous solution concentrates and were prepared byprocess (viii).

TABLE 75a Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w composition g a.e./l OilSurfactant Type of oil Type of surfactant 75-01 163 0.5 5.0 methylstearate steareth-20 75-02 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate steareth-20 75-03163 0.5 5.0 methyl oleate steareth-20 75-04 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleatesteareth-20 75-05 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate steareth-20 75-06 163 0.55.0 butyl laurate steareth-20 75-07 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 steareth-2075-08 163 5.0 none steareth-20 75-09 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearateceteareth-27 75-10 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 75-11 163 0.55.0 methyl oleate ceteareth-27 75-12 163 0.5 5.0 butyl oleateceteareth-27 75-13 163 0.5 5.0 methyl laurate ceteareth-27 75-14 163 0.55.0 butyl laurate ceteareth-27 75-15 163 0.5 5.0 Orchex 796 ceteareth-2775-16 163 5.0 none ceteareth-27

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 75b.

TABLE 75b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 15  5 250 57 20 350 83 50 450 78 73Formulation C 150 65 63 250 87 93 350 92 94 450 98 100  Formulation J150 50 73 250 90 90 350 94 98 450 98 99 75-01 150 72 70 250 88 85 350 9683 450 99 86 75-02 150 73 53 250 83 87 350 97 99 450 97 98 75-03 150 6833 250 87 92 350 93 97 450 98 93 75-04 150 72 50 250 87 88 350 94 86 45098 97 75-05 150 72 67 250 83 82 350 99 97 450 98 98 75-06 150 73 33 25095 83 350 99 95 450 99 88 75-07 150 73 55 250 93 73 350 95 83 450 98 9175-08 150 75 40 250 94 60 350 98 86 450 99 92 75-09 150 77 50 250 90 50350 98 92 450 99 98 75-10 150 72 53 250 92 77 350 96 86 450 99 99 75-11150 72 60 250 87 87 350 97 97 450 97 99 75-12 150 70 57 250 90 90 350 9696 450 98 99 75-13 150 68 40 250 90 77 350 99 95 450 99 98 75-14 150 7733 250 94 70 350 96 82 450 99 93 75-15 150 75 30 250 96 75 350 97 88 45099 92 75-16 150 77 40 250 99 47 350 98 67 450 98 78

Steareth-20 and ceteareth-27, as sole excipient substances (compositions75-08 and 75-16 respectively) provided excellent herbicidaleffectiveness, but further enhancements, especially on ECHCF, wereobtained by inclusion of a small amount of fatty acid ester in thecomposition.

Example 76

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 76a. Concentratecompositions 76-13 and 76-14 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 76-01 to 76-12 and76-15 are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidalparticulates and were prepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions76-16 and 76-17 contained colloidal particulates but no surfactant.

Compositions 76-13 and 76-14 (both containing 162 g a.e./l glyphosate)showed acceptable storage stability. However, at glyphosateloadings >480 g a.e./l (as in compositions 76-01 to 76-12 and 76-15)storage-stable compositions containing 3% oleth-20 could not be madeexcept with the addition of colloidal particulate as shown below.

TABLE 76a Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w composition g a.e./l Oleth-20Glycerin Aerosil Type of Aerosil 76-01 492 3.00 2.0 0.8 380 76-02 4923.00 5.0 1.5 380 76-03 492 3.00 2.0 0.8 380 76-04 492 3.00 5.0 1.5 38076-05 492 3.00 0.8 OX-50 76-06 492 3.00 1.5 OX-50 76-07 492 3.00 0.8380/OX-50 blend 76-08 492 3.00 1.5 380/OX-50 blend 76-09 492 3.00 0.8380 76-10 492 3.00 1.5 380 76-11 492 3.00 0.8 380 76-12 492 3.00 1.5 38076-13 162 1.13 none 76-14 162 1.13 none 76-15 492 3.00 2.0 1.5 380 76-16488 0.8 380 76-17 488 1.5 380

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 76b.

TABLE 76b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 18 40 250 57 53 350 72 63 450 83 85Formulation J 150 70 65 250 85 95 350 98 98 450 100  99 76-01 150 62 67250 72 93 350 99 96 450 99 97 76-02 150 57 50 250 70 91 350 92 97 450 9999 76-03 150 48 40 250 68 67 350 97 97 450 98 98 76-04 150 55 50 250 8283 350 95 90 450 99 94 76-05 150 65 43 250 87 87 350 100  94 450 96 9576-06 150 55 53 250 75 82 350 95 95 450 100  96 76-07 150 45 83 250 7882 350 90 93 450 95 99 76-08 150 55 47 250 75 88 350 93 99 450 99 9776-09 150 47 47 250 65 82 350 78 99 450 97 97 76-10 150 47 40 250 72 96350 77 80 450 85 97 76-11 150 37 53 250 73 82 350 80 83 450 90 92 76-12150 35 57 250 70 82 350 80 97 450 90 99 76-13 150 50 40 250 68 75 350 9592 450 99 95 76-14 150 40 33 250 70 82 350 93 89 450 98 93 76-15 150 2333 250 67 73 350 83 91 450 94 92 76-16 150 13 40 250 45 50 350 62 72 45077 77 76-17 150  7 33 250 50 50 350 60 70 450 75 73

Several high-loaded (492 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions containingoleth-20 at just 3% exhibited surprisingly high herbicidaleffectiveness, approaching or equalling that of commercial standardFormulation J, which is loaded at only about 360 g a.e./l and has a muchhigher surfactant to glyphosate ratio.

Example 77

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 77a. Concentratecomposition 77-08 to 77-14 are oil-in-water emulsions and were preparedby process (vii). Concentrate compositions 77-15 to 77-17 are aqueoussolution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii). Concentratecompositions 77-01 to 77-07 contain colloidal particulates and wereprepared by process (ix).

Compositions 77-08 to 77-17 (all containing 163 g a.e./l glyphosate)showed acceptable storage stability. However, at a glyphosate loading of400 g a.e./l (as in compositions 77-01 to 77-07) storage-stablecompositions containing 0.5-1% butyl stearate and 5-10% alkylethersurfactant could not be made except with the addition of colloidalparticulate as shown below.

TABLE 77a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl composition g a.e./lstearate Surfactant Aerosil 90 Type of surfactant 77-01 400 1.0 10.0 1.0 ceteareth-27 77-02 400 1.0 10.0  1.0 steareth-20 77-03 400 0.5 5.01.0 ceteareth-27 77-04 400 0.5 5.0 1.0 steareth-20 77-05 400 1.0 5.0 1.0ceteareth-27 77-06 400 1.0 5.0 1.0 steareth-20 77-07 400 1.0 5.0 1.0steareth-30 77-08 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 77-09 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-2077-10 163 0.5 5.0 ceteth-20 77-11 163 0.5 5.0 laureth-23 77-12 163 0.55.0 ceteareth-27 77-13 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol 25-12 77-14 163 0.5 5.0 Neodol25-20 77-15 163 5.0 steareth-20 77-16 163 5.0 ceteth-20 77-17 163 5.0laureth-23

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 77b.

TABLE 77b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Composition applied g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150  0 40 250 20 60 350 68 82 450 83 96Formulation C 150 68 93 250 93 99 350 100  100  450 100  100 Formulation J 150 43 89 250 93 100  350 100  100  450 100  100  77-01150 78 97 250 96 100  350 98 100  450 100  100  77-02 150 91 98 250 100 100  350 100  100  450 100  100  77-03 150 90 97 250 99 99 350 100  100 450 100  100  77-04 150 77 98 250 100  100  350 100  100  450 100  100 77-05 150 82 93 250 100  99 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-06 150 83 85250 100  99 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-07 150 83 87 250 100  100 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-08 150 90 92 250 100  100  350 100  100 450 100  100  77-09 150 90 85 250 100  98 350 100  100  450 100  100 77-10 150 80 85 250 100  92 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-11 150 83 88250 96 99 350 100  98 450 100  100  77-12 150 93 85 250 100  99 350 100 100  450 100  100  77-13 150 72 73 250 92 97 350 100  99 450 100  100 77-14 150 72 80 250 99 99 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-15 150 100  93250 100  99 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-16 150 100  98 250 100  100 350 100  100  450 100  100  77-17 150 83 83 250 100  99 350 100  99 450100  99

Outstanding herbicidal effectiveness was provided by compositionscontaining C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylether surfactants (ceteareth-27, steareth-20,steareth-30, oleth-20, ceteth-20). High-loaded (400 g a.e./l) glyphosatecompositions containing a C₁₆₋₁₈ alkylether surfactant, butyl stearateand a colloidal particulate (Aerosil 90) to stabilize the compositionsperformed especially impressively in this test.

Example 78

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 78a. Concentratecomposition 78-01 to 78-09, 78-11 to 78-14, 78-16 and 78-17 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecompositions 78-10 and 78-15 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii).

TABLE 78a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Oleth- Other Other comp. g a.e./l Oil20 surfactant Type of oil surfactant 78-01 163 0.25 2.5 methyl laurate78-02 163 0.25 2.5 methyl myristate 78-03 163 0.25 2.5 methylpalmitoleate 78-04 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate 78-05 163 0.25 2.5methyl linoleate 78-06 163 0.25 2.5 methyl oleate 78-07 163 0.25 2.5methyl stearate 78-08 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl stearate 78-09 163 0.25 2.5butyl stearate 78-10 163 2.5 none 78-11 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitoleateMON 0818 78-12 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate MON 0818 78-13 163 0.25 2.5methyl oleate MON 0818 78-14 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate MON 0818 78-15163 2.5 none MON 0818 78-16 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate laureth-23 78-17163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate Neodol 1-9

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 78b.

TABLE 78b Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  2 35 200 52 67 300 77 83 400 78 87Formulation C 100 25 77 200 72 99 300 87 100  400 99 100  Formulation J100 13 73 200 70 97 300 90 100  400 97 100  78-01 100 22 55 200 65 86300 78 98 400 89 98 78-02 100 20 63 200 67 91 300 83 99 400 97 100 78-03 100 30 75 200 63 98 300 83 99 400 94 100  78-04 100 23 63 200 6098 300 90 99 400 95 100  78-05 100 27 57 200 62 91 300 83 96 400 93 9878-06 100 23 50 200 63 89 300 83 99 400 96 99 78-07 100 25 53 200 65 94300 83 99 400 92 99 78-08 100 13 47 200 53 88 300 89 97 400 95 99 78-09100 27 53 200 60 85 300 83 97 400 97 98 78-10 100 13 53 200 62 94 300 8397 400 88 99 78-11 100 23 60 200 50 90 300 85 98 400 95 99 78-12 100 1755 200 35 94 300 78 98 400 94 99 78-13 100  8 50 200 43 90 300 73 98 40090 99 78-14 100 30 63 200 45 92 300 80 98 400 94 98 78-15 100 20 63 20070 96 300 82 99 400 94 98 78-16 100 18 62 200 62 83 300 80 97 400 97 9778-17 100 17 52 200 58 85 300 75 90 400 95 98

No great or consistent enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness ofglyphosate compositions containing oleth-20 was obtained by adding asmall amount of any of a variety of fatty acid esters in this study(compare 78-10 with 78-01 to 78-09).

Example 79

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 79a. Concentratecomposition 79-01 to 79-09, 79-11 to 79-14, 79-16 and 79-17 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecompositions 79-10 and 79-15 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii).

TABLE 79a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Oleth- Other Other composition ga.e./l Oil 20 surfactant Type of oil surfactant 79-01 163 0.25 2.5isopropyl myristate 79-02 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl myristate 79-03 163 0.252.5 methyl palmitate 79-04 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl palmitate 79-05 163 0.252.5 ethyl linoleate 79-06 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl oleate 79-07 163 0.25 2.5methyl stearate 79-08 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl stearate 79-09 163 0.25 2.5butyl stearate 79-10 163 2.5 none 79-11 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitateMON 0818 79-12 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate MON 0818 79-13 163 0.25 2.5ethyl stearate MON 0818 79-14 163 0.25 2.5 ethyl oleate MON 0818 79-15163 2.5 none MON 0818 79-16 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate laureth-23 79-17163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate Neodol 1-9

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 79b.

TABLE 79b Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 12 33 200 45 43 300 73 63 400 80 63Formulation C 100 43 57 200 75 88 300 95 99 400 100  99 Formulation J100 53 60 200 77 75 300 96 95 400 99 98 79-01 100 35 40 200 73 72 300 8391 400 99 97 79-02 100 38 30 200 70 43 300 87 82 400 96 80 79-03 100 2527 200 68 50 300 90 73 400 96 82 79-04 100 27 27 200 75 50 300 80 73 40096 80 79-05 100 33 27 200 68 43 300 83 70 400 97 91 79-06 100 33 28 20072 53 300 83 60 400 99 70 79-07 100 37 25 200 72 40 300 83 50 400 97 6579-08 100 32 25 200 73 43 300 87 60 400 98 67 79-09 100 35 25 200 75 43300 95 57 400 98 63 79-10 100 35 27 200 73 40 300 83 76 400 97 73 79-11100 35 33 200 67 67 300 80 86 400 92 70 79-12 100 25 30 200 67 70 300 8376 400 88 80 79-13 100 27 33 200 70 66 300 78 63 400 93 60 79-14 100 3330 200 67 47 300 80 70 400 92 77 79-15 100 20 30 200 68 40 300 83 75 40090 72 79-16 100 30 25 200 62 43 300 73 73 400 77 70 79-17 100 30 23 20058 40 300 75 60 400 80 73

In this study, isopropyl myristate (composition 79-01) was the mosteffective of the fatty acid esters tested as additives to oleth-20(79-10) in glyphosate compositions.

Example 80

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 80a. Concentratecomposition 80-01 to 80-13 are oil-in-water emulsions and were preparedby process (vii). Concentrate compositions 80-14 to 80-17 are aqueoussolution concentrates and were prepared by process (viii).

TABLE 80a Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w composition g a.e./l OilSurfactant Type of oil Type of surfactant 80-01 163 0.25 2.5 butylstearate laureth-23 80-02 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate steareth-20 80-03163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate ceteareth-20 80-04 163 0.25 2.5 butylstearate ceteareth-15 80-05 163 0.25 2.5 butyl stearate Neodol 45-1380-06 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate steareth-20 80-07 163 0.25 2.5 methylstearate ceteareth-20 80-08 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate ceteareth-1580-09 163 0.25 2.5 methyl stearate Neodol 45-13 80-10 163 0.25 2.5methyl palmitate steareth-20 80-11 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitateceteareth-20 80-12 163 0.25 2.5 methyl palmitate ceteareth-15 80-13 1630.25 2.5 methyl palmitate Neodol 45-13 80-14 163 2.5 none steareth-2080-15 163 2.5 none ceteareth-20 80-16 163 2.5 none ceteareth-15 80-17163 2.5 none Neodol 45-13

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 24 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 80b.

TABLE 80b Glyphosate Concentrate rate % Inhibition composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 10 37 200 30 40 300 43 57 400 23 33Formulation C 100 50 67 200 75 96 300 85 99 400 94 100  Formulation J100 40 75 200 73 94 300 93 98 400 95 99 80-01 100 63 77 200 67 94 300 7799 400 88 96 80-02 100 63 75 200 83 88 300 93 98 400 95 99 80-03 100 6775 200 82 95 300 95 99 400 98 99 80-04 100 60 75 200 82 97 300 96 99 40098 100  80-05 100 63 73 200 75 89 300 80 98 400 87 97 80-06 100 58 63200 78 93 300 93 99 400 98 100  80-07 100 60 67 200 78 93 300 93 99 400100  99 80-08 100 missing missing 200 missing missing 300 78 95 400 9899 80-09 100 23 30 200 65 83 300 80 98 400 93 99 80-10 100 65 67 200 8395 300 97 99 400 99 99 80-11 100 72 73 200 90 98 300 96 97 400 99 9980-12 100 68 63 200 90 92 300 98 99 400 97 99 80-13 100 43 73 200 72 87300 83 98 400 93 96 80-14 100 62 77 200 78 99 300 95 99 400 98 100 80-15 100 52 60 200 78 93 300 94 98 400 97 99 80-16 100 38 68 200 68 99300 87 97 400 94 99 80-17 100 55 75 200 68 91 300 83 96 400 87 98

Herbicidal effectiveness exceeding that of commercial standardcomposition J, at least on ABUTH, was recorded with severalcompositions, including 80-02 (steareth-20 plus butyl stearate), 80-03(ceteareth-20 plus butyl stearate), 80-04 (ceteareth-15 plus butylstearate), 80-10 (steareth-20 plus methyl palmitate), 80-11(ceteareth-20 plus methyl palmitate) and 80-12 (ceteareth-15 plus methylpalmitate). Compositions lacking fatty acid ester performed slightlyless well overall than those containing butyl stearate or methylpalmitate.

Example 81

Spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA salt andexcipient ingredients as shown in Table 81a. Compositions were preparedby simple mixing of ingredients. Soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid,Avanti), where included, was first prepared with sonication in water tomake a homogeneous composition. Four different concentrations ofglyphosate (not shown in Table 81a) were prepared, calculated toprovide, when applied in a spray volume of 93 l/ha, the glyphosate ratesshown in Table 81b.

TABLE 81a % w/w Spray Butyl Methyl Oleth- Lecithin Methyl oleate comp.Lecithin FC-754 stearate oleate 20 supplied as supplied as 81-01 0.050.050 soybean lecithin 81-02 0.05 0.050 soybean lecithin 81-03 0.05soybean lecithin 81-04 0.050 81-05 0.050 81-06 0.05 LI-700 81-07 0.0050.05 81-08 0.01 0.05 81-09 0.05 81-10 0.005 81-11 0.01 pure 81-12 0.01methylated seed oil

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and Prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 14 daysafter planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments,representing technical glyphosate IPA salt and a commercial formulationof glyphosate IPA salt respectively. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 81b.

TABLE 81b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Composition applied g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF SIDSP Formulation B  50  0  0  0 (technical) 100 38 35 35200 87 50 90 300 95 88 94 Formulation C  50  0  2  0 (commercial) 100 3255 25 200 85 97 93 300 96 99 96 81-01  50 78 53 88 100 90 60 95 200 9996 99 300 99 97 98 81-02  50 25 15 43 100 72 30 82 200 94 62 93 300 9577 94 81-03  50 20  8 32 100 52 22 78 200 87 55 91 300 95 65 93 81-04 50 62 37 85 100 82 68 92 200 97 96 95 300 98 95 97 81-05  50 15 10 25100 47 27 23 200 85 62 87 300 90 63 92 81-06  50  0  2  0 100 20 15 20200 85 60 82 300 90 65 90 81-07  50 67 27 82 100 87 55 93 200 94 92 96300 97 99 97 81-08  50 62 30 75 100 78 63 91 200 93 96 96 300 94 98 9881-09  50 65 45 77 100 80 73 95 200 93 98 97 300 95 99 99 81-10  50 1025  5 100 23 35 37 200 90 50 93 300 92 73 94 81-11  50 10 25  0 100 5233 43 200 88 72 93 300 94 78 94 81-12  50  0 15  0 100 43 35 33 200 9170 90 300 94 82 93

Results of this test using glyphosate as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here. soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (81-03) was a much more effective excipient than thelecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (81-06) widely used in the art.

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (81-05) did not greatly enhanceeffectiveness.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (81-02) gave surprisinglystrong enhancement of effectiveness, suggesting a synergisticinteraction between these two excipient substances.

Fluorad FC-754, either alone (81-04) or in combination with lecithin(81-01) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior to that obtainedwith the commercial standard.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (81-09) gave extremely higheffectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (81-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (81-08)did not provide further enhancement.

Example 82

Spray compositions were prepared containing paraquat dichloride andexcipient ingredients. Compositions 82-01 to 82-12 were exactly likecompositions 81-01 to 81-12 except that a different active ingredientwas used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selectedappropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 daysafter planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 12 days after application.

Standards included technical paraquat dichloride and Gramoxone, acommercial formulation of paraquat from Zeneca. Results, averaged forall replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 82.

TABLE 82 Paraquat rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Paraquat dichloride  25 50 83 55 (technical)  50 57 78 60100 73 84 69 200 85 95 99 Gramoxone  25 40 72 40 (commercial)  50 60 7052 100 72 58 55 200 72 89 63 82-01  25 75 93 67  50 82 97 91 100 95 9897 200 100  99 99 82-02  25 67 80 48  50 68 87 65 100 88 97 93 200 96 9998 82-03  25 55 65 42  50 62 87 65 100 83 96 93 200 95 99 97 82-04  2553 82 45  50 63 94 53 100 88 99 86 200 92 99 98 82-05  25 58 67 50  5060 62 45 100 70 73 62 200 85 90 88 82-06  25 53 77 43  50 60 92 40 10080 93 55 200 96 99 78 82-07  25 65 80 45  50 82 92 70 100 96 96 89 200100  98 99 82-08  25 67 80 37  50 82 90 71 100 97 98 65 200 99 99 9382-09  25 72 90 50  50 80 97 57 100 91 99 94 200 97 100  97 82-10  25 6787 45  50 68 75 57 100 78 93 63 200 82 97 82 82-11  25 65 80 45  50 7377 62 100 90 95 62 200 94 98 78 82-12  25 67 78 37  50 75 90 55 100 7797 90 200 85 99 92

Results of this test using paraquat as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (82-03) was a much more effective excipient on SIDSPthan the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (82-06) widely used in the art.

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (82-05) did not enhance effectiveness.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (82-02) gave surprisinglystrong enhancement of effectiveness, suggesting a synergisticinteraction between these two excipient substances.

Fluorad FC-754 (82-04) gave extremely high effectiveness, superior tothat obtained with the commercial standard. In the presence of lecithin(82-01), effectiveness was further increased dramatically, suggesting asynergistic interaction between these two excipient substances.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (82-09) gave extremely higheffectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (82-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (82-08)did not provide further enhancement.

Example 83

Spray compositions were prepared containing acifluorfen sodium salt andexcipient ingredients. Compositions 83-01 to 83-12 were exactly likecompositions 81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different activeingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations wasselected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 15 days after planting ABUTH, 9 daysafter planting ECHCF and 22 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 10 days after application.

Standards included technical acifluorfen sodium and Blazer, a commercialformulation of acifluorfen from Rohm & Haas. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 83.

TABLE 83 Acifluorfen rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Acifluorfen  25 20  2 15 (technical)  50 32  7 17 100 52 1835 200 62 35 40 Blazer  25 30 30  5 (commercial)  50 53 53 12 100 55 55 7 200 65 65 32 83-01  25 60  7 20  50 63 20 20 100 65 43 33 200 80 7048 83-02  25 25  7  5  50 42 12 25 100 60 30 22 200 68 68 50 83-03  2522  5 10  50 55  7 33 100 62 25 27 200 65 55 48 83-04  25 57  7 13  5067 10 32 100 67 35 32 200 70 70 45 83-05  25 30  3 15  50 47 27 27 10055 42 37 200 65 60 38 83-06  25 28  0  3  50 50  0 10 100 55 30 25 20067 58 47 83-07  25 35 20 17  50 55 35 27 100 58 63 32 200 67 67 55 83-08 25 40 20  8  50 57 30 28 100 60 60 30 200 70 77 48 83-09  25 47 20 22 50 55 35 35 100 62 65 38 200 68 82 50 83-10  25 28  0  5  50 48  0 10100 53  5 25 200 62 35 40 83-11  25 35  0  5  50 43  0 30 100 50  0 35200 65 43 47 83-12  25 40  5  5  50 55 18 35 100 60 47 38 200 70 62 48

Results of this test using acifluorfen as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (83-03) gave effectiveness similar to that obtainedwith the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (83-06) widely used in the art.

Butyl stearate at 0.05% alone (83-05) and in combination with lecithin(83-02) enhanced effectiveness, particularly on ECHCF.

Fluorad FC-754, either alone (83-04) or in combination with lecithin(83-01) gave effectiveness on ABUTH and SIDSP superior to that obtainedwith the commercial standard.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (83-09) gave effectivenesssuperior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Addition of0.005% butyl stearate (83-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (83-08) did notprovide further enhancement.

Example 84

Spray compositions were prepared containing asulam and excipientingredients. Compositions 84-01 to 84-12 were exactly like compositions81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different active ingredientwas used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selectedappropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 11 daysafter planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Standards included technical asulam and Asulox, a commercial formulationof asulam from Rhône-Poulenc. Results, averaged for all replicates ofeach treatment, are shown in Table 84.

TABLE 84 Spray Asulam rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Asulam 200 0 12 0 (technical) 400 17 27 5 800 48 32 20 140042 50 37 Asulox 200 3 5 0 (commercial) 400 27 30 20 800 52 45 25 1400 5060 40 84-01 200 5 8 13 400 23 45 22 800 50 50 30 1400 60 65 48 84-02 2000 20 17 400 33 40 20 800 47 48 33 1400 53 68 55 84-03 200 3 20 3 400 2852 7 800 50 50 23 1400 50 58 43 84-04 200 3 40 7 400 35 45 18 800 52 5025 1400 58 60 42 84-05 200 0 10 3 400 23 30 18 800 33 50 32 1400 45 5738 84-06 200 2 30 10 400 8 47 17 800 50 55 28 1400 52 63 40 84-07 200 043 3 400 22 48 17 800 40 55 28 1400 52 60 33 84-08 200 7 47 22 400 20 4822 800 53 55 30 1400 57 60 33 84-09 200 0 45 7 400 25 50 7 800 53 60 321400 55 63 37 84-10 200 22 37 10 400 27 45 10 800 50 43 23 1400 52 52 2784-11 200 25 33 5 400 15 37 13 800 48 42 25 1400 42 52 28 84-12 200 3 2517 400 13 42 18 800 50 45 30 1400 52 50 33

Results of this test using asulam as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (84-03) gave similar enhancement to that obtained withthe lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (84-06) widely used in the art.

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (84-05) enhanced effectiveness on ECHCF.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (84-02) gave greaterenhancement of effectiveness than either excipient substance alone.

Fluorad FC-754, either alone (84-04) or in combination with lecithin(84-01) gave effectiveness equal to that obtained with the commercialstandard.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (84-09) gave, at lowexogenous chemical rates, effectiveness on ECHCF superior to thatobtained with the commercial standard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate(84-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (84-08) did not provide furtherenhancement.

Example 85

Spray compositions were prepared containing dicamba sodium salt andexcipient ingredients. Compositions 85-01 to 85-12 were exactly likecompositions 81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different activeingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations wasselected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 daysafter planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 17 days after application.

Standards included technical dicamba sodium and Banvel, a commercialformulation of dicamba from Sandoz. Results, averaged for all replicatesof each treatment, are shown in Table 85.

TABLE 85 Spray Dicamba rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Dicamba 25 47 0 30 (technical) 50 63 0 40 100 82 0 50 200 935 58 Banvel 25 47 0 35 (commercial) 50 68 0 40 100 91 0 53 200 93 3 6385-01 25 42 0 38 50 67 0 48 100 92 0 67 200 93 3 73 85-02 25 43 0 43 5058 0 50 100 85 0 62 200 89 8 72 85-03 25 50 0 32 50 65 0 45 100 90 0 60200 94 13 68 85-04 25 43 0 35 50 65 0 42 100 94 0 53 200 94 13 67 85-0525 50 0 35 50 68 0 40 100 88 0 53 200 92 15 60 85-06 25 40 0 40 50 65 045 100 88 0 52 200 92 8 70 85-07 25 45 0 42 50 57 0 45 100 88 0 62 20088 20 68 85-08 25 40 0 38 50 62 0 45 100 97 18 62 200 93 17 73 85-09 2533 0 35 50 60 0 45 100 93 0 63 200 96 15 73 85-10 25 35 0 30 50 57 0 43100 90 0 50 200 90 3 70 85-11 25 45 0 30 50 53 0 42 100 89 0 55 200 92 073 85-12 25 38 0 37 50 60 0 45 100 96 0 52 200 93 0 70

Results of this test using dicamba as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here. soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (85-03) gave similar enhancement of effectiveness tothat obtained with the lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (85-06) widelyused in the art.

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (85-05) provided slight enhancement ofeffectiveness.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (85-02) gave greaterenhancement of effectiveness on SIDSP than either of these two excipientsubstances alone.

Fluorad FC-754 (85-04) provided effectiveness similar to that obtainedwith the commercial standard. Further enhancement on SIDSP was obtainedwith the combination of Fluorad FC-754 and lecithin (85-01).

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (85-09) gave effectiveness onSIDSP superior to that obtained with the commercial standard. Additionof 0.005% butyl stearate (85-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (85-08) did notprovide significant further enhancement.

Example 86

Spray compositions were prepared containing metsulfuron-methyl andexcipient ingredients. Compositions 86-01 to 86-12 were exactly likecompositions 81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different activeingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations wasselected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 daysafter planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Standards included technical metsulfuron-methyl and Ally, a commercialformulation of metsulfuron from Du Pont. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 86.

TABLE 86 Spray Metsulfuron rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Metsulfuron 0.5 72 0 5 (technical) 1 90 0 23 5 96 0 50 10 9730 55 Ally 0.5 75 0 5 (commercial) 1 85 0 22 5 95 0 42 10 97 25 53 86-010.5 95 0 47 1 96 20 53 5 97 25 62 10 98 45 62 86-02 0.5 87 0 40 1 90 1055 5 95 10 58 10 96 40 63 86-03 0.5 87 0 27 1 90 0 40 5 96 10 57 10 9733 63 86-04 0.5 90 0 33 1 95 10 50 5 98 17 62 10 99 28 58 86-05 0.5 85 027 1 90 0 33 5 95 0 47 10 95 13 60 86-06 0.5 77 0 30 1 89 10 47 5 96 1762 10 98 33 60 86-07 0.5 94 0 55 1 97 10 60 5 98 43 60 10 97 55 65 86-080.5 93 0 55 1 96 5 58 5 97 42 60 10 97 50 60 86-09 0.5 93 0 55 1 97 1062 5 98 55 62 10 98 65 63 86-10 0.5 85 0 28 1 82 0 30 5 95 10 52 10 9617 57 86-11 0.5 73 0 25 1 88 20 28 5 94 25 53 10 96 32 57 86-12 0.5 75 032 1 85 20 37 5 94 23 55 10 96 25 57

Results of this test using metsulfuron as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (86-03) was a slightly more effective excipient thanthe lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (86-06) widely used in the art inimproving performance on ABUTH at the lowest exogenous chemical ratetested.

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (86-05) enhanced effectiveness to a levelsuperior to that obtained with the commercial standard.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (86-02) gave greaterenhancement of effectiveness than was obtained with either of these twoexcipient substances alone.

Fluorad FC-754, either alone (86-04) or in combination with lecithin(86-01) gave high effectiveness, superior to that obtained with thecommercial standard.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (86-09) gave higheffectiveness, superior to that obtained with the commercial standard.Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (86-07) or 0.01% methyl oleate (86-08)did not provide further enhancement.

Example 87

Spray compositions were prepared containing imazethapyr and excipientingredients. Compositions 87-01 to 87-12 were exactly like compositions81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different active ingredientwas used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selectedappropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 14 daysafter planting ECHCF and 21 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Standards included technical imazethapyr and Pursuit, a commercialformulation of imazethapyr from American Cyanamid. Results, averaged forall replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 87.

TABLE 87 Spray Imazethapyr rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Imazethapyr 5 78 5 20 (technical) 10 83 20 30 25 93 35 40 5094 53 50 Pursuit 5 70 5 25 (commercial) 10 73 33 30 25 90 50 42 50 93 6257 87-01 5 70 45 35 10 75 62 52 25 92 63 57 50 93 72 62 87-02 5 73 57 3210 75 67 43 25 90 70 52 50 92 72 57 87-03 5 70 42 27 10 78 42 35 25 9053 45 50 92 62 52 87-04 5 73 55 33 10 77 68 45 25 93 68 47 50 94 68 6087-05 5 73 47 32 10 73 45 40 25 90 62 47 50 91 68 52 87-06 5 78 72 30 1083 70 35 25 93 77 62 50 94 78 58 87-07 5 82 75 38 10 90 90 52 25 93 9353 50 97 97 62 87-08 5 75 77 38 10 90 92 50 25 95 93 57 50 97 99 6387-09 5 78 80 40 10 83 89 63 25 93 93 62 50 96 93 60 87-10 5 85 50 37 1077 50 45 25 91 63 48 50 93 75 57 87-11 5 75 38 43 10 80 38 37 25 92 6245 50 93 73 53 87-12 5 75 55 38 10 83 60 43 25 92 67 53 50 93 77 55

Results of this test using imazethapyr as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (87-03) was a less effective excipient than thelecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (87-06).

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (87-05) significantly enhancedeffectiveness on ECHCF and slightly on SIDSP.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (87-02) gave enhancementof effectiveness on ECHCF greater than that obtained with either ofthese two excipient substances alone.

Fluorad FC-754 (87-04) gave effectiveness on ECHCF superior to thatobtained with the commercial standard. The combination of Fluorad FC-754and lecithin (87-01) provided slight further enhancement ofeffectiveness on SIDSP.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (87-09) gave extremely higheffectiveness, greatly superior to that obtained with the commercialstandard, especially on ECHCF. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (87-07)further enhanced performance of low exogenous chemical rates on ABUTHmore effectively than addition of 0.01% methyl oleate (87-08).

Example 88

Spray compositions were prepared containing fluazifop-p-butyl salt andexcipient ingredients. Compositions 88-01 to 88-12 were exactly likecompositions 81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different activeingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations wasselected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and broadleaf signalgrass (Brachiaria platyphylla,BRAPP) plants were grown and treated by the standard procedures givenabove. Applications of spray compositions were made 15 days afterplanting ABUTH, 15 days after planting ECHCF and 16 days after plantingBRAPP. Evaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 10 days afterapplication.

Standards included technical fluazifop-p-butyl and Fusilade 5, acommercial formulation of fluazifop-p-butyl from Zeneca. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 88.

TABLE 88 Spray Fluazifop-p rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF BRAPP Fluazifop-p-butyl 2 0 0 20 (technical) 5 0 3 35 15 5 45 6530 5 57 78 Fusilade 5 2 0 0 27 (commercial) 5 0 27 33 15 5 52 78 30 7 7585 88-01 2 0 0 20 5 2 27 30 15 5 58 78 30 10 87 83 88-02 2 0 7 25 5 0 3530 15 2 58 75 30 8 78 75 88-03 2 0 0 18 5 0 8 27 15 0 45 75 30 0 55 7588-04 2 0 20 32 5 2 42 25 15 2 55 72 30 5 80 78 88-05 2 0 13 32 5 2 4232 15 2 55 72 30 7 58 73 88-06 2 2 17 23 5 0 20 25 15 0 50 75 30 0 73 7788-07 2 0 50 40 5 0 52 60 15 0 67 80 30 0 92 85 88-08 2 0 43 35 5 0 5537 15 7 88 82 30 3 96 85 88-09 2 0 47 18 5 0 50 35 15 0 80 80 30 3 93 8588-10 2 0 23 10 5 0 37 42 15 5 55 75 30 10 58 80 88-11 2 0 7 10 5 0 3028 15 0 50 62 30 12 53 68 88-12 2 0 5 20 5 0 7 35 15 5 48 68 30 12 60 77

Results of this test using fluazifop-p-butyl as the exogenous chemicalare summarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (88-03) was a less effective excipient on ECHCF thanthe lecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (88-06).

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (88-05) and in combination with lecithin(88-02) enhanced effectiveness, especially on ECHCF.

Fluorad FC-754, either alone (88-04) or in combination with lecithin(88-01) gave effectiveness equal or superior to that obtained with thecommercial standard.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (88-09) gave extremely higheffectiveness on ECHCF, superior to that obtained with the commercialstandard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (88-07) or 0.01% methyloleate (88-08) did not provide significant further enhancement.

Example 89

Spray compositions were prepared containing alachlor and excipientingredients. Compositions 89-01 to 89-12 were exactly like compositions81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different active ingredientwas used and a range of active ingredient concentrations was selectedappropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 8 daysafter planting ECHCF and 14 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 9 days after application.

Standards included technical alachlor and Lasso, a commercialformulation of alachlor from Monsanto Company. Results, averaged for allreplicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 89.

TABLE 89 Spray Alachlor rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Alachlor 500 0 0 0 (technical) 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 00 0 Lasso 500 0 0 0 (commercial) 1000 0 5 13 2000 0 30 17 4000 15 43 6589-01 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 10 0 7 89-02 500 0 0 0 1000 00 0 2000 0 22 7 4000 12 47 12 89-03 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 400010 0 0 89-04 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 5 0 15 89-05 500 0 0 01000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 3 0 0 89-06 500 0 0 5 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 13 74000 0 37 12 89-07 500 0 0 0 1000 0 8 0 2000 0 28 15 4000 12 50 20 89-08500 0 0 0 1000 0 8 0 2000 0 8 0 4000 5 20 5 89-09 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 02000 0 3 0 4000 12 42 32 89-10 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 00 89-11 500 0 0 0 1000 0 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 0 89-12 500 0 0 0 10000 0 0 2000 0 0 0 4000 0 0 0

None of the compositions tested enhanced post-emergence foliar-appliedherbicidal effectiveness of alachlor in this test. Alachlor is not knownas a foliar-applied herbicide.

Example 90

Spray compositions were prepared containing glufosinate ammonium saltand excipient ingredients. Compositions 90-01 to 90-12 were exactly likecompositions 81-01 to 81-12 respectively except that a different activeingredient was used and a range of active ingredient concentrations wasselected appropriate to the active ingredient being applied.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH), Japanese millet (Echinochloacrus-galli, ECHCF) and prickly sida (Sida spinosa, SIDSP) plants weregrown and treated by the standard procedures given above. Applicationsof spray compositions were made 14 days after planting ABUTH, 10 daysafter planting ECHCF and 17 days after planting SIDSP. Evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 11 days after application.

Standards included technical glufosinate ammonium and Liberty, acommercial formulation of glufosinate from AgrEvo. Results, averaged forall replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 90.

TABLE 90 Spray Glufosinate rate % Inhibition composition g a.i./ha ABUTHECHCF SIDSP Glufosinate 50 0 0 5 (technical) 100 47 0 10 300 90 23 96600 98 43 94 Liberty 50 77 70 20 (commercial) 100 88 96 93 300 98 100 97600 99 100 99 90-01 50 77 33 70 100 95 58 93 300 98 95 97 600 99 99 9890-02 50 33 30 50 100 63 32 93 300 96 52 90 600 98 96 97 90-03 50 15 3038 100 50 33 87 300 92 40 94 600 98 70 98 90-04 50 92 47 50 100 90 53 85300 98 98 96 600 98 99 98 90-05 50 35 20 20 100 37 30 20 300 97 45 78600 91 53 92 90-06 50 10 0 20 100 20 3 20 300 89 47 82 600 91 94 8990-07 50 50 35 70 100 73 52 80 300 95 87 98 600 98 98 97 90-08 50 48 3088 100 83 50 93 300 98 97 96 600 98 99 96 90-09 50 58 35 92 100 91 62 93300 98 96 97 600 98 99 96 90-10 50 30 30 0 100 43 35 10 300 96 43 92 60095 70 91 90-11 50 33 35 0 100 53 35 7 300 96 43 89 600 97 88 93 90-12 5037 5 5 100 37 20 10 300 95 40 88 600 97 85 93

Results of this test using glufosinate as the exogenous chemical aresummarized as follows:

At the low concentration of 0.05% used here, soybean lecithin containing45% phospholipid (90-03) was a much more effective excipient than thelecithin-based adjuvant LI-700 (90-06) widely used in the art.

Butyl stearate alone at 0.05% (90-05) enhanced effectiveness on ECHCF.

The combination of lecithin and butyl stearate (90-02) gave greaterenhancement of effectiveness than either of these two excipientsubstances alone.

Fluorad FC-754, either alone (90-04) or in combination with lecithin(90-01) gave extremely high effectiveness, similar to that obtained withthe commercial standard.

Oleth-20 at the low concentration of 0.05% (90-09) gave extremely higheffectiveness, superior on SIDSP to that obtained with the commercialstandard. Addition of 0.005% butyl stearate (90-07) or 0.01% methyloleate (90-08) did not provide further enhancement.

Example 91

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 91a. Concentratecompositions 91-01 to 91-12 are aqueous solution concentrates containingcolloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Concentratecompositions 91-13 to 91-18 contained colloidal particulates but nosurfactant.

The colloidal particulates of this example were in general too large toconfer good storage stability to the compositions tested.

TABLE 91a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Sur- Type of Type of compositiong a.e./l factant Silica surfactant silica 91-01 488 3.0 0.8 steareth-20Sident 9 91-02 488 3.0 0.8 steareth-20 Sipernat 22 91-03 488 3.0 0.8steareth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-04 488 3.0 0.8 oleth-20 Sident 9 91-05 4883.0 0.8 oleth-20 Sipernat 22 91-06 488 3.0 0.8 oleth-20 Sipernat 22S91-07 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Sident 9 91-08 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20Sipernat 22 91-09 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-10 488 3.0 1.5oleth-20 Sident 9 91-11 488 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 Sipernat 22 91-12 488 3.01.5 oleth-20 Sipernat 22S 91-13 488 0.8 none Sident 9 91-14 488 1.5 noneSipernat 22 91-15 488 0.8 none Sipernat 22S 91-16 488 1.5 none Sident 991-17 488 0.8 none Sipernat 22 91-18 488 1.5 none Sipernat 22S

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 21 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 14 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, ar shown in Table 91b.

TABLE 91b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 3 37 200 10 57 300 43 87 400 57 88Formulation J 100 33 80 200 72 98 300 96 99 400 97 99 91-01 100 47 89200 78 97 300 87 99 400 98 99 91-02 100 37 83 200 70 99 300 90 99 400 95100 91-03 100 40 89 200 70 99 300 90 100 400 95 100 91-04 100 37 94 20058 98 300 87 99 400 95 100 91-05 100 30 60 200 73 95 300 85 99 400 97 9991-06 100 33 67 200 70 97 300 78 99 400 92 100 91-07 100 32 81 200 60 99300 83 98 400 88 100 91-08 100 40 63 200 65 93 300 90 99 400 90 10091-09 100 43 70 200 55 98 300 88 99 400 94 100 91-10 100 33 91 200 70 99300 83 99 400 94 99 91-11 100 20 63 200 70 97 300 92 100 400 94 10091-12 100 48 67 200 70 93 300 88 98 400 94 100 91-13 100 20 50 200 60 83300 83 97 400 94 99 91-14 100 43 43 200 67 88 300 83 97 400 91 99 91-15100 30 50 200 67 73 300 77 96 400 97 96 91-16 100 43 43 200 75 79 300 8794 400 87 91 91-17 100 40 27 200 68 53 300 87 92 400 93 98 91-18 100 4710 200 75 37 300 83 63 400 92 88

Many of the high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate formulations of thisExample exhibited herbicidal effectiveness equal to or greater than thatobtained with commercial standard Formulation J, in spite of containingonly 3% alkylether surfactant.

Example 92

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 92a. Concentratecompositions 92-01 to 92-12 and 92-14 to 92-16 are oil-in-wateremulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentrate composition92-13 is an aqueous solution concentrate and was prepared by process(viii).

TABLE 92a Glypho- % w/w Concentrate sate Sur Type of Type of compositiong a.e./l Oil factant oil surfactant 92-01 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearatesteareth-30 92-02 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate steareth-30 92-03 163 0.55.0 butyl stearate Neodol 45-13 92-04 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate Neodol45-13 92-05 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-15 92-06 163 0.5 5.0methyl stearate ceteareth-15 92-07 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate laureth-2392-08 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate oleth-20 92-09 163 0.5 5.0 butylstearate steareth-20 92-10 163 0.5 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 92-11163 0.3 5.0 butyl stearate ceteareth-27 92-12 163 0.3 2.5 butyl stearateceteareth-27 92-13 163 5.0 none ceteareth-27 92-14 163 0.5 5.0 methylstearate ceteareth-27 92-15 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate steareth-2092-16 163 0.5 5.0 methyl stearate oleth-20

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 92b.

TABLE 92b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 45 57 200 35 53 300 50 57 400 38 33Formulation C 100 70 98 200 90 99 300 97 100 400 100 100 Formulation J100 72 88 200 93 99 300 97 99 400 98 99 92-01 100 83 97 200 97 100 30099 100 400 100 100 92-02 100 80 99 200 96 100 300 99 100 400 99 10092-03 100 73 98 200 92 100 300 98 99 400 99 100 92-04 100 73 98 200 8799 300 97 99 400 99 100 92-05 100 80 98 200 87 100 300 98 100 400 100100 92-06 100 78 97 200 95 98 300 98 100 400 99 100 92-07 100 78 98 20088 100 300 96 100 400 98 100 92-08 100 75 98 200 93 99 300 97 99 400 10099 92-09 100 83 93 200 95 100 300 98 100 400 100 100 92-10 100 80 97 20095 98 300 98 99 400 100 100 92-11 100 80 97 200 93 99 300 98 100 400 10099 92-12 100 77 93 200 88 100 300 99 100 400 99 100 92-13 100 80 73 20095 95 300 99 100 400 100 100 92-14 100 77 94 200 92 99 300 98 100 400100 99 92-15 100 78 92 200 94 99 300 98 100 400 99 100 92-16 100 77 93200 90 98 300 98 99 400 99 100

Extremely high herbicidal effectiveness was provided by ceteareth-27(composition 92-13); this was further enhanced by addition of a smallamount of butyl stearate (92-10, 92-11) or methyl stearate (92-14).Compositions performing better than commercial standard Formulations Cand J, at least on ABUTH, included those containing steareth-30,steareth-20 or ceteareth-27; in this test oleth-20 was not quite aseffective as these saturated alkylethers.

Example 93

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 93a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti) was first dispersed in using sonication.

TABLE 93a % w/w Butyl Etho- Concentrate Glyphosate Leci- stear- meenCeteareth- Ceteareth- composition g a.e./l thin ate T/25 20 27 93-01 2200.75 0.75 1.5 93-02 220 0.75 0.75 1.5 93-03 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 93-04 2200.75 7.50 1.5 93-05 220 0.75 7.50 3.0 93-06 220 3.75 3.75 3.0 93-07 2201.50 1.50 3.0 93-08 220 1.50 1.50 1.5 93-09 220 3.75 3.75 1.5 1.5 93-10220 1.50 1.50 1.5 1.5 93-11 220 3.75 7.50 1.5 1.5 93-12 220 3.75 1.501.5 1.5 93-13 220 0.75 3.75 1.5 1.5 93-14 220 0.75 7.50 1.5 1.5 93-15220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 93-16 220 0.75 7.50 3.0 3.0 93-17 220 7.50 3.093-18 220 0.75 7.50 3.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 23 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 92b.

TABLE 93b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 12 62 200 5 55 300 23 63 400 43 78Formulation J 100 27 82 200 62 98 300 88 95 400 96 99 93-01 100 13 79200 68 95 300 82 99 400 95 91 93-02 100 27 82 200 60 97 300 81 95 400 8799 93-03 100 37 77 200 62 96 300 78 98 400 89 90 93-04 100 37 84 200 5795 300 84 99 400 89 100 93-05 100 33 77 200 65 100 300 78 97 400 88 9793-06 100 43 78 200 62 95 300 87 97 400 95 96 93-07 100 48 78 200 80 91300 90 99 400 76 93 93-08 100 48 83 200 67 89 300 86 96 400 93 97 93-09100 62 84 200 82 98 300 85 99 400 91 97 93-10 100 63 80 200 75 96 300 8599 400 99 99 93-11 100 42 75 200 78 98 300 92 99 400 93 100 93-12 100 5280 200 73 93 300 86 99 400 97 97 93-13 100 55 83 200 75 97 300 97 99 40092 99 93-14 100 52 87 200 73 95 300 91 97 400 87 98 93-15 100 57 83 20092 96 300 98 100 400 100 98 93-16 100 79 88 200 87 97 300 99 99 400 9794 93-17 100 58 83 200 47 94 300 88 98 400 91 93 93-18 100 58 87 200 7591 300 83 99 400 91 98

Outstanding herbicidal effectiveness was provided by composition 93-18,containing lecithin, ceteareth-27 and butyl stearate. Addition of 3%Ethomeen T/25 (93-16) further enhanced effectiveness. Slightly reducedeffectiveness at the lowest glyphosate rate was observed on ABUTH whenthe butyl stearate concentration was cut in half (93-15).

Example 94

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 94a. Concentratecompositions 94-01 to 94-04, 94-06, 94-08, 94-10 and 94-18 areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Concentratecompositions 94-05, 94-07 and 94-09 are aqueous solution concentratesand were prepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 94-11 to94-17 contain colloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).

The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storagestability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulatewere not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included asshown.

TABLE 94a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Sur- Aerosil Type ofcomposition g a.e./l stearate factant 380 surfactant 94-01 163 0.5 5.0steareth-20 94-02 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-27 94-03 163 0.5 5.0 oleth-2094-04 163 0.5 5.0 ceteth-20 94-05 163 5.0 ceteth-20 94-06 163 0.5 5.0Neodol 45-13 94-07 163 5.0 Neodol 45-13 94-08 163 0.5 5.0 ceteareth-1594-09 163 5.0 ceteareth-15 94-10 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-30 94-11 360 1.010.0 1.25 ceteth-20 94-12 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 Neodol 45-13 94-13 360 1.010.0 1.25 ceteareth-15 94-14 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-30 94-15 360 1.010.0 1.25 steareth-20 94-16 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 94-17 360 1.010.0 1.25 ceteareth-27 94-18 163 0.5 5.0 laureth-23

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 22 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 92b.

TABLE 94b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  0 30 200  2 60 300 17 75 400 50 73Formulation J 100 20 63 200 42 98 300 75 100  400 83 98 94-01 100 27 57200 67 98 300 80 99 400 87 98 94-02 100 27 63 200 53 87 300 77 99 400 8799 94-03 100 12 50 200 53 99 300 65 100  400 83 99 94-04 100 20 63 20050 98 300 73 98 400 87 98 94-05 100 18 70 200 57 93 300 80 99 400 83 9994-06 100 17 63 200 35 95 300 60 100  400 75 100  94-07 100  3 43 200 4395 300 62 100  400 68 96 94-08 100 20 43 200 43 88 300 75 99 400 80 9794-09 100 37 57 200 55 93 300 83 100  400 83 99 94-10 100 37 50 200 6096 300 83 99 400 88 99 94-11 100  8 37 200 37 93 300 68 99 400 70 9794-12 100 13 43 200 40 91 300 67 100  400 77 96 94-13 100 25 40 200 4080 300 62 97 400 78 98 94-14 100 23 33 200 37 86 300 75 99 400 78 9494-15 100 23 30 200 43 78 300 53 93 400 78 98 94-16 100 23 37 200 37 95300 63 97 400 78 95 94-18 100 18 50 200 45 88 300 75 69 400 73 93 94-19100 missing missing 200 missing missing 300 missing missing 400 missingmissing

Compositions exhibiting herbicidal effectiveness greater than thatprovided by commercial standard Formulation J included 94-01(steareth-20 plus butyl stearate), 94-09 (ceteareth-15) and 94-10(steareth-20 plus butyl stearate).

Example 95

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 95a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii).

TABLE 95a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Type of composition ga.e./l stearate Surfactant surfactant 95-01 163 1.00 10.0 laureth-2395-02 163 0.50 5.0 laureth-23 95-03 163 0.25 2.5 laureth-23 95-04 1631.00 10.0 Neodol 1-9 95-05 163 0.50 5.0 Neodol 1-9 95-06 163 0.25 2.5Neodol 1-9 95-07 163 1.00 10.0 steareth-10 95-08 163 0.50 5.0steareth-10 95-09 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-10 95-10 163 0.50 5.0steareth-20 95-11 163 0.25 2.5 steareth-20 95-12 163 0.25 1.0steareth-20 95-13 163 0.50 5.0 oleth-20 95-14 163 0.25 2.5 oleth-2095-15 163 0.25 1.0 oleth-20 95-16 163 0.50 5.0 ceteareth-27 95-17 1630.25 2.5 ceteareth-27 95-18 163 0.25 1.0 ceteareth-27

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 21 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 95b.

TABLE 95b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  0 42 200  0 43 300 23 50 400  0 28Formulation J 100  0 73 200 57 85 300 68 93 400 87 94 95-01 100 18 75200 58 92 300 85 90 400 94 95 95-02 100  3 77 200 47 90 300 65 89 400 8795 95-03 100 13 80 200 53 88 300 72 98 400 82 99 95-04 100  0  0 200 5388 300 67 95 400 83 95 95-05 100  2 60 200 50 83 300 70 93 400 85 9295-06 100  0 52 200 55 83 300 62 96 400 77 98 95-07 100  8 70 200 68 95300 91 99 400 95 100  95-08 100 10 65 200 67 99 300 78 99 400 93 100 95-09 100  5 80 200 52 98 300 75 100  400 86 98 95-10 100  0 65 200 6284 300 58 94 400 75 100  95-11 100  5 83 200 50 99 300 63 97 400 87 9995-12 100 10 76 200 60 96 300 72 100  400 100  100  95-13 100 20 85 20067 100  300 91 100  400 96 98 95-14 100 23 68 200 62 89 300 80 100  40099 99 95-15 100  5 57 200 55 93 300 89 95 400 90 98 95-16 100 30 68 20068 94 300 83 98 400 100  100  95-17 100 43 68 200 62 99 300 78 100  400100  99 95-18 100 25 52 200 53 84 300 85 94 400 98 95

Compositions having a 1:3 or lower weight/weight ratio of surfactant toglyphosate a.e., yet outperforming commercial standard Formulation J atleast on ABUTH in this test, included those containing just 1%alkylether surfactant (ratio about 1:15) together with 0.25% butylstearate, where the alkylether surfactant was steareth-20 (95-12),oleth-20 (95-15) or ceteareth-27 (95-18).

Example 96

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 96a. All are aqueoussolution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and wereprepared by process (ix).

The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storagestability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulatewere not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included asshown.

TABLE 96a Conc. Glyphosate % w/w Type of Other comp. g a.e./l SurfactantAerosil Other surfactant Type of Aerosil component 96-01 488 3.0 1.5steareth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 96-02 488 4.5 1.5 steareth-20 380 96-03 4884.5 1.5 steareth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 96-04 488 4.5 1.5 steareth-20MOX-80/MOX-170 (1:2) 96-05 488 6.0 1.5 4.12 steareth-20 380 glycerin96-06 488 3.0 1.5 steareth-20 380 96-07 488 3.0 1.5 7.12 oleth-20 380propylene glycol 96-08 488 3.0 1.5 oleth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2) 96-09 4884.5 1.5 oleth-20 380 96-10 488 4.5 1.5 oleth-20 MOX-80/380 (1:2)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 21 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 95b.

TABLE 96b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  0 25 200 35 27 300 48 28 400 47 48Formulation J 100 50 75 200 80 90 300 97 96 400 99 98 96-01 100 53 33200 83 52 300 98 72 400 98 79 96-02 100 43 27 200 80 57 300 87 73 400 9678 96-03 100 48 30 200 81 70 300 98 78 400 63 57 96-04 100 45 32 200 8775 300 97 73 400 98 83 96-05 100 38 27 200 37 23 300 45 32 400 35 1896-06 100 42 40 200 78 52 300 91 72 400 96 80 96-07 100 37 43 200 48 32300 73 58 400 55 28 96-08 100 43 37 200 68 57 300 84 62 400 89 82 96-09100 37 32 200 83 67 300 94 82 400 63 48 96-10 100 32 40 200 75 68 300 9088 400 65 63

Several high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions exhibitedherbicidal effectiveness on ABUTH equal to commercial standardFormulation J, but none was equal to Formulation J on ECHCF in thistest.

Example 97

Dry granular concentrate compositions were prepared containingglyphosate ammonium salt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table97a. The preparation procedure was as follows. Ammoniun glyphosatepowder was added to a blender. Excipient ingredients were slowly added,together with sufficient water to wet the powder and form a stiff dough.The blender was operated for sufficient time to thoroughly mix allingredients. The dough was then transferred to extrusion apparatus andwas extruded to form granules, which were finally dried in a fluid beddryer.

TABLE 97a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Butyl Colloidal Type of comp. a.e.Lecithin stearate Surfactant particulate Type of surfactant colloidalparticulate 97-01 68.7 21.0 steareth-20 97-02 66.0 2.2 22.0 steareth-2097-03 66.1 24.0 oleth-20 97-04 66.0 2.2 22.0 oleth-20 97-05 67.9 10.02.0 10.0 MON 0818 97-06 59.2 10.0 20.0 + 2.0 FC-754 + MON 0818 97-0768.0 21.0 0.8 Flomo 1407 Aerosil 90 97-08 68.0 21.0 0.8 Flomo 1407Aluminum oxide C 97-09 66.1 24.0 ceteth-20 97-10 66.0 2.2 22.0 ceteth-2097-11 71.2 16.1 2.0 ceteth-20 Aerosil 380 97-12 71.1 16.3 1.0 ceteth-20Aerosil blend (*) 97-13 71.2 16.1 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 97-14 71.216.1 1.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend (*) 97-15 68.0 20.0 1.9 oleth-20Aerosil-380 97-16 70.8 16.6 1.0 oleth-20 Aerosil blend (*) (*) AerosilMOX-80 + Aerosil MOX-170 (1:1)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 21 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations J and K were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 97b.

TABLE 97b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation J 100 52 80 200 90 96 300 96 100  400 97 99Formulation K 100 33 70 200 67 93 300 83 99 400 93 100  97-01 100 47 60200 87 98 300 97 98 400 100  98 97-02 100 47 63 200 80 94 300 90 99 40098 100  97-03 100 62 62 200 83 93 300 97 96 400 97 100  97-04 100 47 57200 78 94 300 87 100  400 98 100  97-05 100 25 53 200 60 88 300 80 97400 83 98 97-06 100 35 37 200 65 62 300 83 83 400 90 95 97-07 100 63 55200 72 97 300 83 100  400 94 100  97-08 100 30 65 200 72 94 300 87 100 400 92 99 97-09 100 37 63 200 77 83 300 88 99 400 97 99 97-10 100 40 55200 83 93 300 94 96 400 98 99 97-11 100 42 55 200 78 94 300 88 92 400 9499 97-12 100 38 58 200 78 97 300 92 97 400 95 100  97-13 100 25 50 20080 88 300 96 95 400 98 98 97-14 100 50 53 200 88 92 300 98 99 400 99 9997-15 100 33 57 200 75 91 300 94 97 400 98 99 97-16 100 33 55 200 77 90300 88 99 400 96 100 

Several dry granular compositions of this Example outperformedcommercial standard composition K, at least on ABUTH. They included97-01 to 97-04 and 97-10 to 97-16, all containing an alkylethersurfactant (steareth-20, oleth-20 or ceteth-20).

Example 98

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 98a. All areoil-in-water emulsions and were prepared by process (vii). Soybeanlecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti) was first dispersed in water eitherby ultrasonication or by use of a microfluidizer as indicated in thecolumn of Table 98a headed “Process”.

TABLE 98a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Butyl Ethomeen MON Ceteareth-Ceteareth- Process comp. g a.e./l Lecithin stearate T/25 0818 20 27 (*)98-01 220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-02 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-03 2200.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-04 220 0.75 0.75 3.0 3.0 B 98-05 220 6.00 1.503.0 3.0 B 98-06 220 6.00 1.50 3.0 3.0 B 98-07 220 4.00 1.00 3.0 3.0 B98-08 220 4.00 1.00 3.0 3.0 B 98-09 220 0.75 3.75 3.0 3.0 A 98-10 2200.75 0.75 3.0 3.0 A 98-11 220 0.75 3.75 6.0 B 98-12 220 0.75 3.75 6.0 B98-13 345 6.00 1.50 4.5 4.5 B 98-14 345 6.00 1.50 6.0 3.0 B 98-15 3456.00 1.50 6.0 6.0 B 98-16 345 0.50 7.50 12.0 B 98-17 345 6.00 1.50 4.54.5 3.0 B (*) Process: A Ultrasonicated B Microfluidized, 3 cycles

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 19 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 98b.

TABLE 98b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 45 82 250 55 71 350 80 72 450 88 77Formulation J 150 55 83 250 89 88 350 97 93 450 99 93 550 99 87 98-01150 92 83 250 96 96 350 99 96 450 100  86 98-02 150 85 93 250 97 78 35097 90 450 99 90 98-03 150 87 85 250 98 92 350 99 95 450 100  95 98-04150 87 89 250 97 92 350 99 94 450 99 91 98-05 150 87 77 250 98 89 350 9993 450 99 84 98-06 150 12 18 250 96 73 350 99 85 450 99 84 98-07 150 8289 250 88 96 350 96 98 450 97 97 98-08 150 88 94 250 95 90 350 99 98 45099 98 98-09 150 94 94 250 95 100  350 97 99 450 99 98 98-10 150 94 94250 98 99 350 99 97 450 99 96 98-11 150 83 81 250 94 88 350 98 93 450 9999 98-12 150 68 79 250 95 96 350 98 100  450 99 98 98-13 150 86 98 25095 98 350 99 100  450 100  98 98-14 150 85 98 250 98 98 350 99 98 450100  98 98-15 150 86 95 250 97 97 350 99 95 450 100  96 98-16 150 93 94250 98 98 350 99 98 450 100  97 98-17 150 95 96 250 98 100  350 100 100  450 100  98

Many compositions containing lecithin and butyl stearate outperformedcommercial standard Formulation J in this test.

Example 99

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 99a. Concentratecompositions 99-04 and 99-05 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 99-06 to 99-13 areaqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates and wereprepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions 99-01 to 99-03contain colloidal particulate but no surfactant.

The compositions of this example containing colloidal particulate allshowed acceptable storage stability. Of those containing steareth-20 butno colloidal particulate, composition 99-04 was acceptablestorage-stable but composition 99-05 was not.

TABLE 99a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Steareth- Oleth- Aero-composition g a.e./l 20 20 sil Type of Aerosil 99-01 484 1.5 MOX-8099-02 484 1.5 380 99-03 484 1.5 MOX-80/ MOX-170 (1:1) 99-04 484 1.5 none99-05 484 3.0 none 99-06 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-170 99-07 484 3.0 1.5 380 99-08484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/ 380 (1:1) 99-09 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/ MOX-170 (1:1)99-10 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80 99-11 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-170 99-12 484 3.0 1.5 38099-13 484 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/ 380 (1:1)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 99b.

TABLE 99b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  3 38 200 28 63 300 37 75 400 55 78Formulation J 100 23 73 200 43 92 300 67 96 400 92 97 99-01 100 23 60200 40 77 300 65 91 400 75 92 99-02 100 18 50 200 25 53 300 33 75 400 6782 99-03 100 27 57 200 35 72 300 50 86 400 70 93 99-04 100 42 67 200 4878 300 78 82 400 80 85 99-05 100 28 43 200 45 77 300 70 92 400 80 9599-06 100 42 57 200 70 75 300 89 87 400 94 94 99-07 100 43 68 200 62 90300 88 92 400 97 92 99-08 100 53 57 200 72 87 300 88 94 400 92 97 99-09100 27 60 200 62 75 300 75 92 400 83 90 99-10 100 47 43 200 73 73 300 8288 400 97 93 99-11 100 48 57 200 63 75 300 80 91 400 89 98 99-12 100 3040 200 42 63 300 68 75 400 73 83 99-13 100 37 40 200 57 75 300 73 80 40078 94

Remarkably strong herbicidal effectiveness was provided by composition99-05, in spite of its very low surfactant (stearth-20) to glyphosatea.e. ratio of about 1:13. Activity, at least on ABUTH, was furtherimproved to a significant degree by inclusion in the composition ofcolloidal particulates such as Aerosil MOX-170 (99-06), Aerosil 380(99-07), a blend of Aerosil MOX-80 and Aerosil 380 (99-08), and a blendof Aerosil MOX-80 and Aerosil MOX-170 (99-09).

Example 100

Aqueous and dry granular concentrate compositions were prepared as shownin Table 100a. Dry granular concentrate compositions 100-01 to 100-11contain glyphosate ammonium salt, and were prepared by the processdescribed in Example 97.

Aqueous concentrate compositions 100-12 to 100-16 contain glyphosate IPAsalt and were prepared by process (v), using soybean lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti).

TABLE 100a Glyphos- % w/w Type of Conc. ate Glyphos- Butyl ColloidalType of colloidal comp. g a.e./l ate a.e. Lecithin stearate Surfactantparticulate surfactant particulate 100-01 68.7 21.0 steareth-20 100-0266.1 24.0 oleth-20 100-03 67.9 10.0 2.0 10.0 MON 0818 100-04 59.2 10.020.0 + 2.0 FC-754 + MON 0818 100-05 66.1 24.0 ceteth-20 100-06 71.2 16.12.0 steareth-20 Aerosil 380 100-07 71.2 16.1 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosilblend 100-08 68.0 20.0 1.9 oleth-20 Aerosil 380 100-09 63.5 25.0 2.0steareth-20 Aerosil blend 100-10 67.9 20.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend100-11 72.2 15.0 2.0 steareth-20 Aerosil blend 100-12 370 4.7 4.7steareth-20 100-13 350 4.9 4.9 ceteareth-27 100-14 348 5.0 5.0ceteareth-15 100-15 348 5.0 5.0 oleth-20 100-16 351 4.4 5.0 steareth-30Aerosil blend: Aerosil MOX-80 + Aerosil MOX-170 (1:1)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 20 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations J and K were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 100b.

TABLE 100b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation J 100  0 20 200 28 57 300 58 96 400 7399 Formulation K 100 22 13 200 42 83 300 48 91 400 58 95 100-01 100 2830 200 48 80 300 80 97 400 85 99 100-02 100 43 52 200 68 80 300 72 88400 86 94 100-03 100 23 37 200 50 83 300 75 88 400 85 96 100-04 100 5045 200 73 80 300 85 92 400 95 94 100-05 100 18 45 200 65 83 300 87 95400 94 86 100-06 100 47 50 200 62 68 300 82 94 400 91 87 100-07 100 5047 200 60 78 300 87 87 400 93 93 100-08 100 30 55 200 55 77 300 82 85400 88 97 100-09 100 45 50 200 57 78 300 83 83 400 84 89 100-10 100 4250 200 57 80 300 73 91 400 91 90 100-11 100 28 48 200 50 75 300 70 87400 82 89 100-12 100 20 40 200 63 80 300 67 96 400 80 88 100-13 100 2735 200 50 85 300 77 90 400 84 86 100-14 100 27 25 200 40 70 300 68 94400 89 91 100-15 100 17 20 200 47 82 300 58 89 400 91 95 100-16 100 2220 200 41 80 300 84 89 400 99 98

All compositions of the invention in this study exhibited greaterherbicidal effectiveness on both ABUTH and ECHCF, in some cases by avery substantial margin, than commercial standard Formulation K.

Example 101

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 101a. All containcolloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).

The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storagestability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulatewere not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included asshown.

TABLE 101a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Aerosil Type of Type of comp. g a.e./lOil Surfactant 380 oil surfactant 101-01 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 butylstearate oleth-20 101-02 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearylamine oleth-20 101-03360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearyl alcohol oleth-20 101-04 360 1.0 10.0 1.25docosane oleth-20 101-05 360 10.0 1.25 none oleth-20 101-06 360 1.0 10.01.25 butyl stearate steareth-30 101-07 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearylaminesteareth-30 101-08 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 stearyl alcohol steareth-30 101-09360 1.0 10.0 1.25 docosane steareth-30 10l-10 360 10.0 1.25 nonesteareth-30 101-11 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 + steareth-20 101-12360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 + steareth-30 101-13 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25none oleth-20 + ceteareth-27 101-14 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none oleth-20 +ceteareth-15 101-15 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none steareth-30 + steareth-20101-16 360 5.0 + 5.0 1.25 none steareth-30 + ceteareth-27 101-17 3605.0 + 5.0 1.25 none steareth-30 + ceteareth-15 101-18 360 10.0 1.25 nonelaureth-23

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 101b.

TABLE 101b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  0 60 200 15 73 300 33 88 400 5791 Formulation J 100  5 70 200 37 92 300 80 99 400 77 96 100-01 100 1388 200 32 85 300 48 98 400 90 93 101-02 100 10 70 200 45 98 300 72 99400 80 98 101-03 100  3 77 200 25 94 300 47 98 400 75 99 101-04 100  767 200 23 94 300 40 99 400  7 47 101-05 100  7 76 200 25 88 300 45 96400 75 97 101-06 100 12 96 200 30 97 300 45 98 400 15 60 101-07 100  883 200 12 97 300 35 94 400 50 98 101-08 100 15 72 200 30 88 300 40 99400  0 33 101-09 100  5 73 200 15 94 300 47 99 400  5 53 101-10 100  779 200 15 95 300 45 98 400 62 99 101-11 100  5 84 200 13 98 300 30 98400 55 100  101-12 100  3 95 200 17 99 300 28 99 400 67 100  101-13 100 5 90 200 17 99 300 30 100  400 60 98 101-14 100  3 98 200 25 97 300 38100  400 57 100  101-15 100  5 97 200 25 97 300 40 100  400 40 99 101-16100 10 97 200 15 98 300 52 100  400  0 47 101-17 100  7 97 200 25 94 30040 98 400 33 97 101-18 100  7 96 200 25 99 300 55 100  400 73 100 

Percent inhibition data for the 400 g a.e./ha glyphosate rate in thistest are unreliable and should be ignored. Neither oleth-20 (composition101-05) nor steareth-20 (101-10) provided herbicidal effectiveness equalto Formulation J in this study, and no great or consistent furtherenhancement was obtained by adding butyl stearate.

Example 102

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 102a. Concentratecompositions 102-01 to 102-03 are oil-in-water emulsions and wereprepared by process (vii). Compositions 102-04 to 102-18 all containcolloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix). Differentmixing methods were employed in the final stage of preparation of thesecompositions, as indicated in the column of Table 102a headed “Process”.

The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storagestability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulatewere not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included asshown.

TABLE 102a Gly- % w/w Proc- Concentrate phosate Butyl Sur- Aerosil Typeof ess composition g a.e./l stearate factant 380 surfactant (*) 102-01163 0.5 5.0 oleth-20 102-02 163 0.5 5.0 steareth-20 102-03 163 0.5 5.0ceteareth-27 102-04 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteareth-15 A 102-05 360 1.0 10.01.25 ceteth-20 A 102-06 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-20 A 102-07 360 1.010.0 1.25 oleth-20 A 102-08 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 ceteareth-27 A 102-09 3601.0 10.0 1.25 steareth-30 A 102-10 360 10.0 1.25 steareth-30 A 102-11360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 A 102-12 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 B 102-13360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 C 102-14 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 D 102-15360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 E 102-16 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 F 102-17360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 G 102-18 360 1.0 10.0 1.25 oleth-20 A (*)Process: A Silverson mixer, medium screen, 3 minutes at 7000 rpm BSilverson mixer, coarse screen, 3 minutes at 7000 rpm C Fann mixer, 50%output, 5 minutes D Turrax mixer, 3 minutes at 8000 rpm E Overheadstirrer, low speed F Overhead stirrer, high speed G Hand shaking, 3minutes

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 19 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 102b.

TABLE 102b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 20 40 200 45 50 300 65 72 400 7885 Formulation J 100 43 53 200 80 80 300 96 82 400 99 94 102-01 100 4557 200 80 72 300 89 78 400 98 83 102-02 100 53 57 200 80 78 300 89 77400 93 83 102-03 100 45 60 200 83 75 300 97 73 400 97 85 102-04 100 4545 200 80 80 300 83 83 400 95 95 102-05 100 42 42 200 77 77 300 93 93400 98 98 102-06 100 30 30 200 42 42 300 27 30 400  3 20 102-07 100 4040 200 77 75 300 90 93 400 97 86 102-08 100 43 50 200 80 80 300 92 93400 96 98 102-09 100  0  2 200 82 75 300 83 96 400 90 88 102-10 100 5760 200 80 70 300 88 88 400 95 93 102-11 100 35 47 200 72 75 300 80 75400 85 77 102-12 100 47 47 200 72 77 300 80 90 400 86 78 102-13 100 5550 200 75 83 300 78 92 400 91 92 102-14 100 52 50 200 75 78 300 83 88400 99 92 102-15 100 47 47 200 70 73 300 87 87 400 75 63 102-16 100 4340 200 78 75 300 88 88 400 87 91 102-17 100 43 43 200 67 88 300 80 75400 92 83 102-18 100 27 40 200 63 57 300 82 73 400 87 70

Results obtained with composition 102-06 are out of line with other datain this Example and an error in formulation or application is suspected.Some differences in herbicidal effectiveness were evident when acomposition containing 360 g a.e./l glyphosate, 1% butyl stearate, 10%oleth-20 and 1.25% Aerosil 380 was processed in different ways (102-11to 102-17). However, as compositions 102-07 and 102-11 were identicallyprocessed yet differed in effectiveness, no firm conclusions can bedrawn from this test.

Example 103

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 103a. Concentratecompositions 103-01 to 103-09 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 103-10 to 103-18are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates andwere prepared by process (ix).

Compositions of this example containing 3% or 6% surfactant were notacceptably storage-stable except in the presence of colloidalparticulate as shown.

TABLE 103a % w/w Composition Glyphosate Steareth- Oleth- Velvetex Typeof no. g a.e./l 20 20 AB-45 Aerosil Aerosil 103-01 488 1.0 none 103-02488 3.0 none 103-03 488 6.0 none 103-04 488 1.0 none 103-05 488 3.0 none103-06 488 6.0 none 103-07 488 1.0 none 103-08 488 3.0 none 103-09 4884.6 none 103-10 488 1.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-11 488 3.0 1.5MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-12 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-13 4881.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-14 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1)103-15 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-16 488 1.0 1.5MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-17 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 103-18 4884.6 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 103b.

TABLE 103b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100 10 40 200 38 67 300 70 80 400 8692 Formulation J 100 43 58 200 65 82 300 91 94 400 100  95 103-01 100 2360 200 40 65 300 73 87 400 80 92 103-02 100 38 67 200 77 82 300 95 83400 99 93 103-03 100 33 67 200 78 73 300 90 94 400 100  96 103-04 100 2363 200 48 81 300 68 87 400 72 88 103-05 100 30 63 200 63 80 300 78 89400 95 93 103-06 100 25 85 200 68 93 300 77 93 400 99 95 103-07 100 1360 200 42 80 300 57 95 400 92 96 103-08 100 20 73 200 43 92 300 83 93400 72 96 103-09 100 30 73 200 50 94 300 65 96 400 75 98 103-10 100 1065 200 53 88 300 72 94 400 83 95 103-11 100 15 50 200 57 77 300 82 95400 92 97 103-12 100 30 70 200 68 98 300 78 97 400 96 98 103-13 100 1577 200 43 93 300 68 95 400 77 99 103-14 100 10 73 200 40 93 300 68 98400 78 98 103-15 100 missing missing 200 missing missing 300 missingmissing 400 missing missing 103-16 100  0 60 200 30 93 300 40 99 400 5099 103-17 100  2 83 200 43 99 300 67 100  400 67 100  103-18 100  5 95200 37 100  300 60 100  400 78 100 

In high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions, steareth-20 at 3%or 6% provided greater herbicidal effectiveness in this test than thesame concentrations of oleth-20. Even at just 3%, steareth-20(composition 103-02) gave effectiveness equal to commercial standardFormulation J. Addition of a blend of colloidal particulates tostabilize the composition (103-11) slightly reduced effectiveness inthis study.

Example 104

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 104a. Concentratecompositions 104-01 to 104-04 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 104-08 to 104-18are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates andwere prepared by process (ix). Concentrate compositions 104-05 to 104-07contain colloidal particulate but no surfactant.

All compositions of this example except 104-01 to 104-03 were acceptablystorage-stable.

TABLE 104a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Steareth- Steareth- MON Type ofcomposition g a.e./l 20 100 0818 Aerosil Aerosil 104-01 488 3.0 104-02488 4.5 104-03 488 6.0 104-04 488 3.0 104-05 488 1.5 380 104-06 488 1.5MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 104-07 488 3.0 MOX-80/380(1:1) 104-08 488 1.5 104-09488 3.0 3.0 1.5 380 104-10 488 4.5 3.0 1.5 380 104-11 488 6.0 3.0 1.5380 104-12 488 3.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 104-13 488 4.5 3.0 1.5MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 104-14 488 6.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 104-15488 3.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 104-16 488 4.5 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1)104-17 488 6.0 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 104-18 488 4.5 3.0 1.5MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 21 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 104b.

TABLE 104b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  2 23 209 18 50 300 42 67 400 6380 Formulation J 100 20 47 200 40 86 300 83 98 400 93 98 104-01 100 1075 200 62 83 300 80 96 400 93 99 104-02 100 40 60 200 77 92 300 87 97400 93 99 104-03 100 23 40 200 38 63 300 78 91 400 97 91 104-04 100 2038 200 23 77 300 43 94 400 73 94 104-05 100  7 30 200 25 37 300 42 60400 67 63 104-06 100  7 30 200 20 53 300 52 67 400 83 67 104-07 100  535 200 20 63 300 57 80 400 43 85 104-08 100 22 83 200 47 99 300 86 98400 78 100  104-09 100 12 45 200 25 77 300 40 83 400 37 95 104-10 100 1353 200 73 99 300 85 98 400 99 99 104-11 100 25 50 200 60 88 300 93 99400 99 99 104-12 100 25 45 200 57 88 300 85 97 400 100  94 104-13 100 3052 200 68 87 300 93 99 400 100  92 104-14 100 40 45 200 73 88 300 81 98400 100  99 104-15 100  8 57 200 33 96 300 81 99 400 95 99 104-16 100 1062 200 48 83 300 99 98 400 100  100  104-17 100 27 58 200 65 92 300 7598 400 93 99 104-18 100  5 40 200 33 87 300 55 98 400 75 98

Among stabilized high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositionsproviding herbicidal effectiveness superior to commercial standardFormulation J, at least on ABUTH, were 104-10 and 104-11 (respectively4.5% and 6% steareth-20+3% MON 0818+1.5% Aerosil 380), 104-13 (4.5%steareth-20+3% MON 0818+1.5% Aerosil MOX-80/MOX-170 blend) and 104-16(4.5% steareth-20+3% MON 0818+1.5% Aerosil MOX-80/380 blend). Therelatively poor performance of composition 104-04 and the goodperformance of composition 104-02 shows that the excellent resultsobtained with the stabilized compositions listed above are primarilyattributable to the steareth-20 component.

Example 105

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 105a. Concentratecompositions 105-01 to 105-09 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 105-10 to 105-18are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates andwere prepared by process (ix).

Compositions of this example containing 3% or 6% surfactant were notacceptably storage-stable except in the presence of colloidalparticulate as shown.

TABLE 105a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Steareth- Oleth- Velvetex Typeof composition g a.e./l 20 20 AB-45 Aerosil Aerosil 105-01 488 1.5 none105-02 488 3.0 none 105-03 488 6.0 none 105-04 488 1.5 none 105-05 4883.0 none 105-06 488 6.0 none 105-07 488 1.5 none 105-08 488 3.0 none105-09 488 4.5 none 105-10 488 1.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-11 488 3.01.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-12 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-13 488 1.51.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-14 488 3.0 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-15 488 6.01.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-16 488 1.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-17 488 3.01.5 MOX-80/380(1:1) 105-18 488 4.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:1)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 15 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 22 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 105b.

TABLE 105b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  0 10 200  3 27 300 13 30 400 3340 Formulation J 100  2 53 200 30 97 300 70 99 400 80 99 105-01 100  567 200 30 89 300 58 98 400 80 100  105-02 100 20 60 200 45 90 300 78 99400 80 100  105-03 100 20 57 200 47 93 300 78 96 400 83 98 105-04 100  357 200 30 83 300 63 99 400 82 98 105-05 100  5 53 200 27 83 300 47 98400 77 100  105-06 100  5 40 200 23 70 300 47 92 400 77 99 105-07 100  353 200 30 85 300 60 94 400 72 97 105-08 100  3 50 200 22 88 300 53 97400 80 100  105-09 100  0 40 200 20 83 300 40 99 400 67 99 105-10 100  040 200 27 60 300 47 83 400 78 94 105-11 100  5 47 200 25 77 300 57 96400 87 97 105-12 100 15 43 200 52 88 300 87 98 400 87 98 105-13 100  040 200 17 70 300 35 83 400 53 88 105-14 100  0 33 200 18 67 300 28 90400 62 98 105-15 100  2 33 200 25 70 300 53 85 400 72 97 105-16 100  030 200 17 50 300 27 67 400 72 87 105-17 100  0  0 200  7 63 300 32 88400 47 90 105-18 100  0  5 200 12 60 300 25 83 400 45 97

Compositions containing steareth-20 generally performed better thancounterparts containing oleth-20 in this study, both in the presence andin the absence of colloidal particulates.

Example 106

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 106a. All containcolloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).

The compositions of this example all showed acceptable storagestability. The compositions shown as containing colloidal particulatewere not storage-stable unless the colloidal particulate was included asshown.

TABLE 106a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Aerosil Type of Type ofcomposition a.e. Oil Surfactant 380 oil surfactant 106-01 31 1.0 10.01.25 Butyl stearate steareth-20 106-02 31 1.0 10.0 1.25 Butyl stearateoleth-20 106-03 31 1.0 10.0 1.25 Butyl stearate steareth-30 106-04 3110.0 1.25 none steareth-30

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Treatments were applied at fourdifferent hours of the day. Applications of spray compositions were made16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation of herbicidalinhibition was done 22 days after application.

Formulation J was applied as a comparative treatment. Results, averagedfor all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 106b.

TABLE 106b Concentrate Hour when Glyphosate rate % Inhibitioncomposition applied g a.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation J 1000 100   5 33200 42 75 300 67 83 400 77 93 106-01 1000 100  7 33 200 40 70 300 50 82400 78 91 106-02 1000 100 18 33 200 37 73 300 48 91 400 80 92 106-031000 100 30 33 200 40 75 300 82 85 400 83 80 106-04 1000 100 30 30 20043 78 300 78 92 400 93 95 Formulation J 1200 100  5 38 200 35 87 300 5396 400 88 99 106-01 1200 100 10 30 200 47 91 300 70 89 400 78 97 106-021200 100  5 37 200 40 75 300 48 87 400 70 94 106-03 1200 100 20 37 20050 82 300 78 98 400 83 97 106-04 1200 100 33 33 200 45 93 300 75 98 40095 100  Formulation J 1400 100 15 40 200 30 90 300 55 100  400 80 100 106-01 1400 100 17 40 200 45 70 300 75 97 400 80 98 106-02 1400 100 1747 200 35 83 300 67 97 400 63 97 106-03 1400 100 30 40 200 63 80 300 7797 400 78 100  106-04 1400 100 23 40 200 45 87 300 73 100  400 78 100 Formulation J 1600 100 10 37 200 32 83 300 52 97 400 75 98 106-01 1600100 27 43 200 40 89 300 77 99 400 95 99 106-02 1600 100 20 53 200 40 95300 53 98 400 80 98 106-03 1600 100 27 60 200 60 93 300 78 97 400 96100  106-04 1600 100 15 37 200 43 83 300 67 97 400 78 96

Composition 106-03 illustrates the consistency of high-level performanceobtainable with, in this case, steareth-30 at an approximately 1:3weight/weight ratio to glyphosate a.e., together with a small amount ofbutyl stearate and Aerosil 380. An average of percent inhibition ofABUTH across all four glyphosate rates shows the following comparison of106-03 with Formulation J. applied at four different hours of the day:

Hour Formulation J Composition 106-03 1000 48 59 1200 45 58 1400 48 621600 42 65

Example 107

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt II and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 107a. Concentratecompositions 107-01 to 107-07 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 107-08 to 107-18are aqueous solution concentrates containing colloidal particulates andwere prepared by process (ix).

Compositions 107-01 to 107-06 were not acceptably storage-stable. Allother compositions showed acceptable storage stability.

TABLE 107a Concen- trate % w/w compo- Glyphosate Agrimul Aerosil sitiong a.e./l Steareth-30 Steareth-20 PG-2069 380 107-01 488 3.00 107-02 4884.50 107-03 488 6.00 107-04 488 3.00 107-05 488 4.50 107-06 488 6.00107-07 488 2.0 107-08 488 3.00 1.5 107-09 488 4.50 1.5 107-10 488 6.001.5 107-11 488 3.00 1.5 107-12 488 4.50 1.5 107-13 488 6.00 1.5 107-14488 1.50 1.50 1.5 107-15 488 2.25 2.25 1.5 107-16 488 3.00 3.00 1.5107-17 488 2.25 2.25 2.0 1.5 107-18 488 3.00 3.00 2.0 1.5

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 23 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 107b.

TABLE 107b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  2 20 200 22 33 300 35 67 400 6873 Formulation J 100 32 63 200 78 90 300 83 93 400 92 97 107-01 100 3857 200 50 63 300 62 80 400 75 89 107-02 100 20 57 200 63 70 300 75 88400 80 96 107-03 100 47 53 200 72 80 300 87 96 400 100  99 107-04 100 3330 200 48 60 300 75 73 400 90 83 107-05 100 10 30 200 43 50 300 68 82400 83 92 107-06 100 22 40 200 43 50 300 75 83 400 83 87 107-07 100 1037 200 40 63 300 78 86 400 95 96 107-08 100 23 43 200 68 63 300 92 88400 98 93 107-09 100 47 57 200 78 70 300 95 92 400 100  96 107-10 100 3757 200 85 68 300 92 85 400 100  93 107-11 100 28 43 200 63 73 300 85 83400 95 96 107-12 100 40 53 200 75 88 300 90 92 400 100  97 107-13 100 4053 200 75 75 300 99 92 400 100  98 107-14 100 30 43 200 68 72 300 83 82400 96 97 107-15 100 38 47 200 77 72 300 94 92 400 100  96 107-16 100 3343 200 75 67 300 92 88 400 100  94 107-17 100 25 43 200 68 82 300 78 96400 99 96 107-18 100 13 37 200 72 70 300 87 80 400 99 85

Several stabilized high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions ofthis Example provided herbicidal effectiveness equal or superior, atleast on ABUTH, to that obtained with commercial standard Formulation J.

Example 108

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 108a. Concentratecompositions 108-12 to 108-14 are aqueous solution concentrates and wereprepared by process (viii). Concentrate compositions 108-01 to 108-11and 108-15 to 108-17 are aqueous solution concentrates containingcolloidal particulates and were prepared by process (ix).

TABLE 108a % w/w Conc. Glyphosate Steareth- Ethomeen Propylene Type ofcomp. g a.e./l 20 T/25 glycol Aerosil Aerosil 108-01 488 3.0 0.8 380108-02 488 6.0 1.5 MOX-80/MOX-170(1:1) 108-03 488 4.5 1.5 380 108-04 4884.5 2.25 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2) 108-05 488 4.5 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2)108-06 488 6.0 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2) 108-07 488 3.0 1.50 0.5 1.5MOX-80/380(1:2) 108-08 488 6.0 3.00 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2) 108-09 4883.0 1.50 0.5 1.5 380 108-10 488 4.5 2.25 0.5 1.5 380 108-11 488 6.0 3.000.5 1.5 380 108-12 488 1.50 0.5 none 108-13 488 2.25 0.5 none 108-14 4883.00 0.5 none 108-15 488 1.50 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2) 108-16 488 2.250.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2) 108-17 488 3.00 0.5 1.5 MOX-80/380(1:2)

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 20 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 108b.

TABLE 108b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 100  0  3 200 10 12 300 43 22 400 4727 Formulation J 100 13 15 200 25 22 300 58 53 400 68 82 108-01 100 3020 200 60 53 300 73 88 400 87 96 108-02 100 40 23 200 63 55 300 88 87400 93 93 108-03 100 42 20 200 72 55 300 82 83 400 90 88 108-04 100 6032 200 70 57 300 90 88 400 90 93 108-05 100 47 32 200 67 57 300 88 85400 94 88 108-06 100 33 37 200 68 67 300 82 80 400 90 88 108-07 100 3537 200 67 70 300 87 85 400 97 93 108-08 100 32 35 200 67 77 300 85 92400 97 95 108-09 100 27 33 200 57 67 300 88 83 400 93 95 108-10 100 1333 200 62 58 300 80 80 400 92 92 108-11 100 13 20 200 60 57 300 88 63400 93 82 108-12 100 10 27 200 53 53 300 70 67 400 88 85 108-13 100  328 200 50 57 300 67 70 400 90 82 108-14 100  3 28 200 55 57 300 70 83400 87 87 108-15 100 10 20 200 58 43 300 70 72 400 83 85 108-16 100 1222 200 55 57 300 73 77 400 92 90 108-17 100  7 20 200 53 55 300 70 75400 85 88

Several stabilized high-load (488 g a.e./l) glyphosate compositions ofthis Example provided herbicidal effectiveness equal or superior, onboth ABUTH and ECHCF, to that obtained with commercial standardFormulation J.

Example 109

Glyphosate-containing spray compositions were prepared by tank-mixingFormulation B with excipients as shown in Table 109.

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 22 days after application. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 109.

TABLE 109 Glyphosate Glyphosate rate Ratio % Inhibition composition ga.e./ha Additive add./a.e. ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 none 18 25 25073 58 350 80 82 Formulation J 150 none 47 90 250 77 93 350 95 94Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:0.3 53 88 250 83 94 350 98 98Formulation B 150 steareth-10 1:1 48 73 250 67 97 350 93 99 FormulationB 150 steareth- 10 1:1.5 52 60 250 65 95 350 86 99 Formulation B 150steareth- 10 1:3 48 73 250 65 83 350 80 98 Formulation B 150 steareth-101:6 50 81 250 60 87 350 85 97 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:0.3 76 92250 100  93 350 100  99 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:1 65 75 250 9496 350 99 99 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:1.5 52 95 250 84 92 350 9898 Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:3 53 82 250 82 100  350 98 93Formulation B 150 steareth-20 1:6 47 62 250 63 93 350 92 97 FormulationB 150 steareth-30 1:0.3 63 88 250 97 100  350 100  100  Formulation B150 steareth-30 1:1 53 72 250 88 96 350 97 97 Formulation B 150steareth-30 1:1.5 50 79 250 81 89 350 96 100  Formulation B 150steareth-30 1:3 50 67 250 78 88 350 97 91 Formulation B 150 steareth-301:6 47 58 250 75 99 350 89 99 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:0.3 55 86250 89 91 350 99 100  Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:1 50 86 250 85 95350 97 100  Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:1.5 43 75 250 80 100  35088 98 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:3 33 73 250 60 92 350 94 100 Formulation B 150 ceteareth-30 1:6 37 73 250 53 89 350 88 100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen T/25 1:0.3 67 90 250 92 99 350 100  100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen T/25 1:1 58 94 250 83 96 350 93 98Formulation B 150 Ethomeen T/25 1:1.5 50 73 250 86 100  350 99 100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen T/25 1:3 45 83 250 89 95 350 100  100 Formulation B 150 Ethomeen T/25 1:6 35 82 250 73 98 350 88 98

Steareth-20, steareth-30 and ceteareth-30 were more effective additivesfor Formulation B than steareth-10 in this study.

Example 110

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPA saltand excipient ingredients as shown in Table 110a. Process (iii) wasfollowed for spray compositions 110-01 to 110-22 and 110-26 to 110-72,using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Process (i) wasfollowed for spray compositions 110-23 to 110-25.

TABLE 110a % w/w Spray Butyl compositions Lecithin stearate MON 0818110-01 0.10 0.10 110-02 0.10 0.08 110-03 0.10 0.05 110-04 0.10 0.03110-05 0.10 0.01 110-06 0.08 0.10 110-07 0.05 0.10 110-08 003 0.10110-09 0.01 0.10 110-10 0.08 0.01 110-11 0.05 0.01 110-12 0.03 0.01110-13 0.01 0.01 110-14 0.01 0.03 110-15 0.01 0.05 110-16 0.01 0.08110-17 0.03 0.03 110-18 0.05 0.05 110-19 0.08 0.08 110-20 0.08 0.03110-21 0.03 0.08 110-22 0.05 110-23 0.05 110-24 0.09 110-25 0.03 110-260.09 0.02 0.09 110-27 0.09 0.02 0.05 110-28 0.01 0.01 0.01 110-29 0.010.01 0.03 110-30 0.01 0.01 0.05 110-31 0.01 0.01 0.08 110-32 0.01 0.010.10 110-33 0.01 0.05 0.01 110-34 0.01 0.05 0.03 110-35 0.01 0.05 0.05110-36 0.01 0.05 0.08 110-37 0.01 0.05 0.10 110-38 0.01 0.10 0.01 110-390.01 0.10 0.03 110-40 0.01 0.10 0.05 110-41 0.01 0.10 0.08 110-42 0.010.10 0.10 110-43 0.05 0.01 0.01 110-44 0.05 0.01 0.03 110-45 0.05 0.010.05 110-46 0.05 0.01 0.08 110-47 0.05 0.01 0.10 110-48 0.05 0.05 0.01110-49 0.05 0.05 0.03 110-50 0.05 0.05 0.05 110-51 0.05 0.05 0.08 110-520.05 0.05 0.10 110-53 0.05 0.10 0.01 110-54 0.05 0.10 0.03 110-55 0.050.10 0.05 110-56 0.05 0.10 0.08 110-57 0.05 0.10 0.10 110-58 0.10 0.010.01 110-59 0.10 0.01 0.03 110-60 0.10 0.01 0.05 110-61 0.10 0.01 0.08110-62 0.10 0.01 0.10 110-63 0.10 0.05 0.01 110-64 0.10 0.05 0.03 110-650.10 0.05 0.05 110-66 0.10 0.05 0.08 110-67 0.10 0.05 0.10 110-68 0.100.10 0.01 110-69 0.10 0.10 0.03 110-70 0.10 0.10 0.05 110-71 0.10 0.100.08 110-72 0.10 0.10 0.10

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 110b.

TABLE 110b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation C 280 71 73 Formulation J 280 65 77 110-01 28060 49 110-02 280 46 47 110-03 280 34 48 110-04 280 33 35 110-05 280 5033 110-06 280 49 52 110-07 280 39 42 110-08 280 48 38 110-09 280 51 42110-10 280 37 30 110-11 280 48 30 110-12 280 56 34 110-13 280 41 45110-14 280 52 56 110-15 280 38 40 110-16 280 53 33 110-17 280 45 40110-18 280 52 38 110-19 280 37 34 110-20 280 36 28 110-21 280 40 38110-22 280 44 47 110-23 280 60 42 110-24 280 92 76 110-25 280 87 69110-26 280 89 88 110-27 280 79 80 110-28 280 74 73 110-29 280 91 76110-30 280 94 92 110-31 280 87 81 110-32 280 93 77 110-33 280 88 73110-34 280 92 85 110-35 280 90 82 110-36 280 92 77 110-37 280 87 77110-38 280 88 77 110-39 280 84 74 110-40 280 87 68 110-41 280 93 76110-42 280 94 78 110-43 280 80 59 110-44 280 69 54 110-45 280 88 74110-46 280 94 79 110-47 280 95 79 110-48 280 71 63 110-49 280 81 72110-50 280 81 79 110-51 280 79 85 110-52 280 98 69 110-53 280 69 70110-54 280 74 69 110-55 280 84 78 110-56 280 86 68 110-57 280 98 82110-58 280 71 69 110-59 280 95 79 110-60 280 92 70 110-61 280 93 70110-62 280 98 80 110-63 280 81 74 110-64 280 84 73 110-65 280 89 70110-66 280 91 65 110-67 280 94 81 110-68 280 87 81 110-69 280 72 79110-70 280 87 76 110-71 280 94 71 110-72 280 97 73

Compositions outperforming commercial standard Formulations C and J onboth ABUTH and ECHCF in this test included 110-26, 110-27, 110-30,110-34, 110-35, 110-51 and 110-57, all containing lecithin, butylstearate and MON 0818.

Example 111

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 111a. Concentratecompositions 111-01 to 111-06 were prepared by process (x), usingsoybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Composition 111-07 wasprepared by process (viii).

TABLE 111a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl Ethomeen composition ga.e./l Lecithin stearate T/25 111-01 200 6.0 2 6.0 111-02 200 3 6.0111-03 200 1.5 9.0 111-04 200 3 9.0 111-05 200 6.0 1.5 9.0 111-06 2006.0 1.5 3.0 111-07 200 9.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 16 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 15 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 111b.

TABLE 111b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 29 22 250 41 29 350 53 32 450 6835 Formulation J 150 43 32 250 76 43 350 86 47 450 94 66 111-01 150 6733 250 85 40 350 96 71 450 97 59 111-02 150 65 36 250 81 52 350 97 68450 98 62 111-03 150 67 40 250 85 77 350 94 77 450 97 63 111-04 150 6938 250 86 58 350 93 84 450 98 62 111-05 150 73 40 250 83 53 350 93 75450 96 61 111-06 150 45 30 250 71 38 350 91 45 450 89 39 111-07 150 5939 250 83 44 350 95 63 450 95 70

Data for the 450 g a.e./ha glyphosate rate in this study are unreliable.Application error is suspected. The high levels of Ethomeen T/25included in compositions of this Example tends to obscure the effects oflecithin and butyl stearate, but composition 111-05, for example, showedoutstanding effectiveness.

Example 112

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 112a. Process (vii) wasfollowed for concentrate composition 112-08 and process (x) forconcentrate compositions 112-01 to 112-07 and 112-09, using soybeanlecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti).

TABLE 112a % w/w Concentrate Glyphosate Butyl composition g a.e./lLecithin stearate MON 0818 112-01 220 4.0 6.0 112-02 220 4.0 0.5 6.0112-03 220 4.0 1.0 6.0 112-04 220 4.0 2.0 6.0 112-05 220 2.0 0.5 2.0112-06 220 2.0 0.5 4.0 112-07 220 2.0 0.5 6.0 112-08 220 0.5 6.0 112-09220 6.0 1.5 6.0

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 17 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B and C were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 112b.

TABLE 112b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 40 59 250 68 61 350 90 91 450 9394 Formulation C 150 74 78 250 93 90 350 97 96 450 100 94 112-01 150 7985 250 93 98 350 96 97 450 97 95 112-02 150 71 87 250 93 96 350 96 94450 98 94 112-03 150 87 99 250 94 100 350 99 97 450 97 94 112-04 150 89100 250 94 99 350 97 98 450 98 95 112-05 150 73 100 250 90 100 350 95 98450 96 94 112-06 150 80 99 250 94 96 350 95 100 450 99 98 112-07 150 8883 250 94 92 350 96 92 450 100 90 112-08 150 81 91 250 92 96 350 97 89450 99 92 112-09 150 90 96 250 93 93 350 95 95 450 94 98

Herbicidal effectiveness overall was very high under the conditions ofthis study but a tendency can be discerned in compositions 112-01 to112-04 for performance to improve as butyl stearate concentration wasincreased from zero to 2%.

Example 113

Aqueous spray compositions were prepared containing varioustetraalkylammonium salts of glyphosate and excipient ingredients asshown in Table 113a. Process (iii) was followed for spray compositions113-02 to 113-04, 113-06 to 113-08, 113-10 to 113-12 and 113-14 to113-16, using soybean lecithin (45% phospholipid, Avanti). Compositions113-01, 113-05, 113-09 and 113-13 are simple solutions of thetetraalkylammonium salts of glyphosate in water.

TABLE 113a Spray % w/w Glyphosate composition Lecithin salt 113-01(Me)₄N 113-02 0.10 (Me)₄N 113-03 0.05 (Me)₄N 113-04 0.02 (Me)₄N 113-05(Et)₄N 113-06 0.10 (Et)₄N 113-07 0.05 (Et)₄N 113-08 0.02 (Et)₄N 113-09(Pr)₄N 113-10 0.10 (Pr)₄N 113-11 0.05 (Pr)₄N 113-12 0.02 (Pr)₄N 113-13(Bu)₄N 113-14 0.10 (Bu)₄N 113-15 0.05 (Bu)₄N 113-16 0.02 (Bu)₄N

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and 20 days after planting ECHCF, andevaluation of herbicidal inhibition was done 16 days after application.

Formulations B, C and J were applied as comparative treatments. Inaddition, Formulations B and C were tank-mixed with a pre-dispersedlecithin composition prepared from soybean lecithin (45% phosphplipid,Avanti). Results, averaged for all replicates of each treatment, areshown in Table 113b.

TABLE 113b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Spray composition g a.e./haABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 200 23 34 400 43 38 600 69 54 800 75 41Formulation B + lecithin 200 7 15 0.1% w/v 400 31 36 600 58 37Formulation B + lecithin 200 10 17 0.05% w/v 400 34 40 600 61 47Formulation B + lecithin 200 11 17 0.025% w/v 400 27 39 600 63 39Formulation C 200 38 62 400 90 91 600 96 100 800 100 99 Formulation C +lecithin 200 36 55 0.1% w/v 400 81 93 600 100 95 Formulation C +lecithin 200 35 53 0.05% w/v 400 79 90 600 91 99 Formulation C +lecithin 200 32 55 0.025% w/v 400 77 88 600 96 100 Formulation J 200 4034 400 83 78 600 87 96 800 100 95 113-01 200 27 34 400 74 52 600 84 46113-02 200 39 37 400 73 64 600 89 68 113-03 200 24 35 400 73 59 600 8875 113-04 200 29 43 400 71 59 600 82 90 113-05 200 51 43 400 79 48 60098 49 113-06 200 58 47 400 84 81 600 86 97 113-07 200 69 41 400 83 84600 90 94 113-08 200 55 48 400 79 79 600 93 92 113-09 200 73 60 400 9658 600 98 73 113-10 200 69 75 400 94 94 600 99 91 113-11 200 72 62 40094 98 600 100 99 113-12 200 76 65 400 97 79 600 100 100 113-13 200 85 64400 97 58 600 99 65 113-14 200 83 87 400 99 84 600 99 98 113-15 200 8766 400 94 96 600 100 100 113-16 200 91 87 400 97 91 600 100 94

Addition of lecithin to composition B (glyphosate IPA salt) did notprovide significant enhancement of herbicidal effectiveness. However,when lecithin was added to tetraalkylammonium salts of glyphosate,significant improvements were obtained. In some cases adding a very lowamount of lecithin (0.02%) gave better results than adding a largeramount (0.1%). Outstanding effectiveness, for example, was obtained withcomposition 113-16, containing the tetrabutylanmonium salt of glyphosateand 0.02% lecithin.

Example 114

Aqueous concentrate compositions were prepared containing glyphosate IPAsalt and excipient ingredients as shown in Table 114a. Process (v) wasfollowed for all concentrate compositions, using soybean lecithin (45%phospholipid, Avanti).

TABLE 114a Concentrate Glyphosate % w/w composition g a.e./l LecithinBenzalkonium Cl 114-01 363 8.1 5.4 114-02 363 8.1 4.1 114-03 363 8.1 3.0114-04 363 8.1 2.1 114-05 372 8.3 2.5 114-06 363 6.8 4.0 114-07 362 6.82.9 114-08 355 3.5 10.0 114-09 354 3.0 13.3 114-10 352 2.5 16.7 114-11352 2.0 20.0 114-12 295 5.0 10.0 114-13 295 4.5 13.3 114-14 294 4.0 16.7114-15 294 3.5 20.0 114-16 292 3.0 23.3

Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti, ABUTH) and Japanese millet(Echinochloa crus-galli, ECHCF) plants were grown and treated by thestandard procedures given above. Applications of spray compositions weremade 18 days after planting ABUTH and ECHCF, and evaluation ofherbicidal inhibition was done 18 days after application.

Formulations B and J were applied as comparative treatments. Results,averaged for all replicates of each treatment, are shown in Table 114b.

TABLE 114b Glyphosate rate % Inhibition Concentrate composition ga.e./ha ABUTH ECHCF Formulation B 150 52 27 250 72 40 350 87 60 450 8877 Formulation J 150 82 90 250 92 99 350 99 99 450 100 100 114-01 150 7897 250 87 99 350 98 99 450 99 100 114-02 150 68 83 250 73 99 350 96 99450 98 99 114-03 150 65 53 250 77 92 350 93 99 450 98 100 114-04 150 6276 250 83 88 350 96 98 450 95 99 114-05 150 68 57 250 90 88 350 95 98450 98 99 114-06 150 72 57 250 83 98 350 93 98 450 98 100 114-07 150 7769 250 85 85 350 97 98 450 98 99 114-08 150 80 85 250 93 99 350 99 100450 100 100 114-09 150 88 88 250 95 99 350 100 99 450 100 100 114-10 15099 97 250 97 100 350 100 100 450 99 99 114-11 150 98 92 250 98 97 350 9999 450 100 100 114-12 150 83 92 250 95 99 350 98 99 450 99 99 114-13 15091 95 250 94 97 350 99 100 450 99 100 114-14 150 93 96 250 90 97 350 9899 450 99 98 114-15 150 90 97 250 99 97 350 100 100 450 99 99 114-16 15092 94 250 98 100 350 99 100 450 100 99

Overall herbicidal effectiveness in this study was extremely high andenhancements over commercial standard Formulation J are thereforedifficult to discern. However, particularly outstanding performance wasobtained with compositions 114-10, 114-11 and 114-13 to 114-16containing lecithin and benzalkonium chloride.

The preceding description of specific embodiments of the presentinvention is not intended to be a complete list of every possibleembodiment of the invention. Persons skilled in this field willrecognize that modifications can be made to the specific embodimentsdescribed here that would be within the scope of the present invention.

What is claimed is:
 1. An in vitro assay method for selecting anexogenous chemical composition having enhanced biological effectivenesswhen applied to plants, comprising the steps of: (1) providing a glassmicroscope slide coated with a thin, uniform layer of wax, such that thewax layer on the slide exhibits a dark field when illuminated bytransmitted polarized light and examined through a microscope, (2)preparing a sample of an aqueous solution or dispersion of an exogenouschemical composition, diluted or concentrated if necessary such that theconcentration of exogenous chemical is about 15% to about 20% by weightof the composition, (3) positioning the slide on a stage of a microscopethat transmits polarized light through the slide, (4) placing a drop ofthe sample on the wax layer to form an assay slide, (5) maintaining theassay slide at approximately ambient temperature for a period of about 5to about 20 minutes, (6) determining at the end of said period whetherwhen transmitting polarized light the locus of the drop on the assayslide displays birefringence, and (7) selecting for biologicalevaluation a composition wherein birefringence is displayed.
 2. An invitro assay method for selecting a composition of an excipient substanceproviding enhanced biological effectiveness of an exogenous chemicalwhen applied therewith to plants, comprising the steps of: (1) providinga glass microscope slide coated with a thin, uniform layer of wax, suchthat the wax layer on the slide exhibits a dark field when illuminatedby transmitted polarized light and examined through a microscope, (2)preparing a sample of an aqueous solution or dispersion of a compositionof an excipient substance, diluted or concentrated if necessary suchthat the concentration of excipient substance is about 5% to about 7% byweight of the composition, (3) positioning the slide on a stage of amicroscope that transmits polarized light through the slide, (4) placinga drop of the sample on the wax layer to form an assay slide, (5)maintaining the assay slide at approximately ambient temperature for aperiod of about 5 to about 20 minutes, (6) determining at the end ofsaid period whether when transmitting polarized light the locus of thedrop on the assay slide displays birefringence, and (7) selecting forbiological evaluation a composition wherein birefringence is displayed.